this is so fucking dumb, I ruled out C because I thought figurative here means becoming more abstract. And while that is true in regards to the use of words, when it comes to art and representation it actually means to be a more accurate depiction.

I crossed out every single answer actually. Ended up skipping over D because I forgot MOST correctly addressed mail do in fact NOT get damaged.

Seriously though: If you had won the lottery, you would be rich.

Lottery -> Rich

It would

That's interesting and also I think really weird of the LSAC. Where did you see this?

@TheBigFatPanda so the opposite of no person can work without A would be some person(s?) work without A. How many persons? We just know its not zero.

The opposite of "no" is just "some". This could be 1, 10 , "most", or "all". You have to be really careful with these negations and account for different outcomes.

This is just pure dumbassery on my part, like I knew D wasn't sound and went with it anyway. What does the first sentence of the last paragraph do? Explain why this theory wasn't widely accepted, hence B.

The key to this is finding the right place to look for the answer. I went looking all over paragraph 1 but didn't realize the next sentence, in the next paragraph, literally presents this.

Big fucking stretch right here implying best ending -> approval of the character. Still the problem with A is that, although this is basically what the author does to evaluate Woody Allen's films, i.e looking at his body of work, there's nothing to imply what the author thinks critics should think. Add on top of that there's nothing about artistic merit the author talks about, there's no evaluation about the quality of any of the work, it only talks about a specific theme.

bro fuck AC E what is this phrasing. I picked it on POE but still had no clue what its on about.

The fact that you have scored 170+ multiple times already indicates you've mostly gotten over this plateau. This kind of variance 100% happens pretty much at every level. If you can maintain -2 to -3 between all sections you'd already be on course for a mid 170 score. Just focus drill your biggest weaknesses and the hardest questions. Go back and re-study the basics if you need to.

What's the news?

my dumbass didn't make the connection that hard covers and hardbacks are the same thing.

genuinely took me 2 minutes to realize wait, the whole point of the passage is that institutional authority can and do recognize well reasoned arguments.

@LowriThomas but it could be though, some people could be only allergic to protein only x, some only y, some both x and y, some maybe none. Even if all cats had the same XYZ proteins all the conditions in the stim would still be correct no?

"So if YOUR magazine also published"

me:

seriously what the fuck is this question i spent like 10 mins reading this and still don't understand what is happening like who is You bruh, is You chinese?

I don’t see how C weakens the argument whatsoever. Just because there are other countries making pesticides doesn’t mean the US wouldn’t be making the situation WORSE by making and exporting these banned pesticides. If the stim said something like “eliminating the banned pesticides would greatly curtail the danger to US citizens”, then I definitely see it. But as the argument stands, I don’t think it does anything against the conclusion that “this practice (of making and shipping banned pesticides) by itself still can contribute greatly to the detriment of US health. Assuming C is true, how much of the crops imported in with the banned pesticides are sprayed with the pesticides made in American vs from other countries? 99% to 1%? 50/50 split? We don’t know! Even if only 10% of the vegetables shipped in are sprayed with the banned pesticides that were originally produced in American vs 90% from other countries, this 10% could still greatly jeopardize American health. Moreover, the answer only says "other countries make and export these pesticides", we don't even know if they use it for foods shipped to the US. I know this is a most weakening question so the answer doesn't have to be a silver bullet, but there are just so many leaps in logic you'd have to do to make this work. If anything its actually B which might address this issue, because its closer to implying that only a small percentage of the US exported pesticides are the banned ones.

For instance consider the following

Weaken the following conclusion:

Stim: I use a lot of oil and salt when I cook, but because eating a lot of oil and salt can be bad, this practice can be really bad for my health.

C: Me cooking is not the only potential source of oil and salt in my diet.

You see how that does nothing to weaken my conclusion that the fact that I use a lot of oil and salt is bad? Yes its totally possible that I also go out and eat panda express, which has even more oil and salt, but this doesn't weaken the conclusion that using a lot of oil and salt when I cook can still be bad. You could say "well you only cook for 1% of meals you eat", which would weak my conclusion a lot, but just hinting at the existence of other sources of oil and salt does next to nothing