RIP to those that didn't see the word "regardless"

If you just negate AC E, there is your answer.

You're freedom of speech and use of technology, while commenting this on some sort of smart device, in a 1st world country is BECAUSE of colonization. You're welcome.

C relies on assumptions though. Also, C says "People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate's character than on the exact positions of the candidate." Meaning, there is still room for other basis to vote. AC A attacks the logic directly, whereas AC C, does not.

Yes. This is a causal assumption where the conclusion could be potentially getting the flow of logic mixed up. Does snoring cause abnormalities or somehow did these throat abnormalities cause the snoring? AC E strengthens the argument by attacking the abnormality assumption. It doesn't guarantee the conclusion like a SA would but it does increase the strength of the argument. AC D is nothing but an attractive trap answer.

If we can't even identify who is an actual epistemologist, then there really isn't much room for discussion. AC E stands out completely on its own from the others.

I chose E but after reading the comments and seeing the popularity of A, I am now more curious as to why those that chose A thought E was wrong? I can see the appeal in AC A but excluding E is pretty wild considering it's exactly the gap the argument needs.

I can't believe I got this correct

Because AC A rules out an alternative hypothesis that could undermine the conclusion. What if poisonous butterflies ALSO had irregular flight patterns? That weakens the conclusion. So ruling it out STRENGTHENS the conclusion.

That's not a flaw, that's you making up an assumption that is irrelevant to the argument. LSAT questions don 't require outside information to get them correct. Not only that, this is not a flaw question, this is a MS type. Additionally, you misunderstood the premise - red admiral butterflies normal flight pattern is always irregular, not when it's just in danger. That's typical of how they fly so you can see why your assumption doesn't even correspond.

Fucking diabolical to make the correct AC E knowing that most LSAT takers typically go from AC A-E as they hunt. I was tripping the fuck out every time I read a new AC. God, they all sounded so good. I ended up choosing D for God knows why. Damn, read the fucking question stem.

You're conflating sufficiency for necessity, the most common LSAT trap. The stimulus doesn't state all requirements to be successful, it stated one - "commercial computer software cannot require users to memorize unfamiliar commands." That is a necessary requirement for success but it does NOT guarantee success because there could be OTHER requirements. That said, for sufficient assumption questions, are looking to bridge the premises to the conclusion to thus guarantee the argument. AC C does just that - it rules out other possibilities to be successful and makes the the first premise relevant to the conclusion.

The assumption was tied to the "meaning of a poem" part of the stimulus. That was the only unsupported premise that I could sniff in out in a short amount of time before I had to answer the question. Meaning of a poem is not necessarily a derivative of a particular idea that the poem expresses. An idea can be something irrelevant to the overall message of the poem, thus, making AC E the necessary assumption. If you negate AC E, it collapses the argument. To negate AC E - Some readers believe that a poem expresses a particular idea that is not actually part of the meaning of the poem. Once you see the negated version, it instantly confirms the AC E as correct!

Bro answered his own question not knowingly 😂

This question pissed me off and should be a 4 or 5 star. AC C is correct after further review because we are isolating the "policy" of forced community service that can work on its own. Whereas, AC D talks about policies, plural.

D is kind of backwards though. The argument is saying "money doesn't really exist" and all it takes is to believe it does NOT exist for it to not exist. AC A guarantees that - Even if people stop believing in something, that thing would still continue to exist, which in turn precludes money from that definition. AC A makes the conclusion ironclad.

This is a MSS type of question. There isn't assumptions being made to get to AC B. Soon as I read B, I knew it to be the correct answer irrespective of me not reading the remaining answers, that's how confidence I was on it.

The stimulus EXPLICITLY states "though on occasion unsuccessfully." The stimulus never talks about all options, that is something that you have introduced into the stimulus. Stick within the parameters of the stimulus and B becomes very obvious. Not only, AC A, C-E are all horribly wrong anyway.

The conclusion isn't saying "the most viable way to detect presence of life on a planet," it said "reliable way." C is irrelevant to the argument and is a trap answer. It was never about whether we could or could not do it, this was a theoretical argument being made that we are assigned to weaken, thus AC B.

A. Basically, a conservative example of the stimulus.

B. We don't know the exact mechanisms of how it kills other organisms.

C. "Most" is way too strong to conclude.

D. "Only in" is too specific and we also cannot conclude that.

E. Too strong. "Ensure that" made this easy to eliminate.

For those that are reading this guy's comments, B is incredibly wrong for a multitude of reasons. B doesn't add anything of value to the argument. The premise already says data gathered 60 years ago from primitive weather stations - If some of these weather stations are 61 years old, ok, and? So what? How does that BOAST the argument? It doesn't since it explicitly has already been stated that primitive correlates to 60 years old. Either way, you can always do a basic POE and 100% confirm that every other AC absolutely strengthens or supports the stimulus, superiorly to AC B. Not much of a debate.

Exactly, it can be subjective. I didn't say all flaw questions were easy, just that this 5 star one in particular was. As far as the insensitivity goes, good. I thrive on competition and this type of race is meant of the fastest horses. We want the best lawyers, not sensitive ones.

Tough question, however, the ole POE strategy led me to E. The other answers were too strong or irrelevant. Honestly, I didn't even fully grasp AC E but it resonated with the last sentence of the argument.

Hahahaha the propaganda of this question is insane! Red meat is literally one of the healthiest foods to eat and there is absolutely zero causal effect with heart disease. Cereal and bread, however, is slop. IYKYK.

Such an easy question, how is it 5 stars?