@BruceGabrielle Your contrived example doesn't prove anything. You artificially made up numbers to reach an intended conclusion. Regardless, what you just did is not how the LSAT works, which tells me there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how you believed the LSAT operates (I get your post is from 2023, my response is for the contemporary readers seeing your comment). You can only go off of what is STATED INSIDE the stimulus, you cannot introduce outside knowledge, like you just did. Must be true or must be false questions provide you a set of rules and/or provisions and it is your job to navigate those in order to figure out the correct answer. AC C is a valid answer, regardless of what common sense in the real world actually says.

@spencerh98 That is definitely a strategy you do not want to get in the habit of doing lol. Rarely does that work.

@SMRegalado A contradictory view or action would be something like "I believe voting is a fallacy, an illusory action, that the government bestows upon its people, but then I would still vote every election." I believe in one thing but then contradict my viewpoint with an action.

I believe you're conflating contradiction for causal effect. The people in the stimulus are unaware that etiquette actually does have beneficial effects for society, regardless of what they think is to be true. That's not a contradictory view, that's just them being devoid of the existing relationship between etiquette and "kindness and harmony."

@TeklaCo The reason why it's not too extreme is because the stimulus says "While many people criticize etiquette because they believe it has no beneficial effects for society, these same people think that..." - meaning, the stimulus and AC C, match up the same quantifiers by using "many people" in a consistent manner.

@TaylorRoseWals Why? It was pretty simple.

@AlexHaro Close but opposite - inconspicuous is synonymous with being covert.

@ForeignSherbert No, you can't just negate from "anywhere." You don’t randomly negate one word. You negate the whole answer choice. Here, the whole claim is “most were not displeasing.” The negation is “not most were not displeasing,” meaning half or fewer were not displeasin or at least half were displeasing. “Some were displeasing” is too weak because it can be true even when the original is true.

@Peter786 If anything, AC C would strengthen Pratt's argument, not weaken.

I am genuinely curious as to what other answer, other than AC B, could possibly be argued as correct? You don't have to agree with the explanation of the correct answer or the validity of the question, but in what world, would any of the other answers possibly be correct? B was the only that made much more sense, especially considering how Pratt says "bats are shy animals," the opposite of being "aggressive."

AC A says - Bacteria colonies that do not produce phenazines form wrinkled surfaces, increasing the number of bacteria in direct contact with the surrounding environment. That supports the hypothesis because it suggests if a colony does not have phenazines, it needs another way to get more bacteria access to outside nutrients. Wrinkling the surface is a physical workaround. It increases outside contact. That makes sense if phenazines normally help solve the same problem chemically/molecularly. So A fits the idea: No phenazines → colony compensates by creating more surface contact. Phenazines → maybe no need for that because nutrients can be piped inward.

AC D actually hands you the answer on a silver platter - what if that possibility were true? It breaks the entire argument. AC E was tempting but even if you didn't fully understand why AC E is wrong, how could you choose AC E but then ignore what D is stating?

@TeklaCo The entire argument of the council chair hinges on the unnecessary/problematic rules which calls for a change. If you remove the problematic rules, why change then? Hence, answer choice C.

@TeklaCo "The alternate code contains very little provisions that have thus been criticized." VS "The alternate code contains several provisions that have thus been criticized."

Do you see how "a few" vs "few" completely changes the meaning of that answer choice now? That's what the OP is stating.

Kind of a subjective question IMO. You can neutrally discuss the pros or the cons of something without sounding positive or negative. I feel like to sound positive or negative about something, there's got to be an underlying derivative of optimism or pessimism. Oh well, dually noted.

@justkeepswimming Depends on the context of what follows the word "unfortunately." For example, the author does subsequently state that it is a redistributionist idea and goes on to support that with further detail. So the author is expressing the flawed nature of Rawls' theory which definitely can be taken as "disagreement" or even a mild "misalignment" BECAUSE of the said flaws.

@TeklaCo Ditto that.

What comes after the word "unless" is the necessary condition so take the contrapositive of that - If it doesn't pose a possible threat, no license requirement. B has that exact layout. No realistic threat from interior designer, no licensing.

@jakewalters608414 That would reduce the difficulty from a 4 to a 1 star question then. The answer to this question had an implicit conclusion and the reader's job is to go hunt what that would look like. The word "suggest" in AC E, definitely is the implicit conclusion.

God dammit. This one is a tricky SOB! I totally get it now after reading the explanation - false dichotomy flaw.

The core theme here is the argument assumes consumers of a product would find it easier if a product's instructions on how to assemble it came with it. That is the assumption or in this question type, principle. The question stem has a "if true," so therefore, to weaken this stimulus, we need to hunt for an answer that is contrarian or weakens the stimulus. AC C does just that - it quantifies the answer by saying "most consumers" and then makes a descriptive claim about the most consumers by saying they assemble very easily without ever consulting the instructions. That answer weakens the stimulus and conclusion of the consumer advocate. Even though this is a 5 star question, if you adhere to the core theme of the argument, the answer does announce itself easier than it is perceived to be.

@SimonArmendariz Anyone who lives without constant awareness of fragility and precariousness is sufficient to be illusion. Also, those same exact indicators are sufficient to be tainted on life. Now, what is the contrapositive of the latter? If you are not tainted, then you are not perpetually cognizant OR precarious on human life. And if you are not both of those conditions, then your mind is clouded by illusion. Therefore, untainted=a minded clouded by illusion.

@Ferg It says "most," not "none" and that is also a major assumption you are making. For example, clownfish that live in large, stinging celled anemones are protected by the symbiotic relationship. No predators of a clownfish have evolved to deal with the harsh sting of an anemone therefore it's very valid for early flying dinosaurs to escape most of their predators by seeking refuge in a tree.

Not only that, how would AC A remotely strengthen the question?

@Ferg “Any other studies or outside evidence would be irrelevant.” - That is not generally true on LSAT weaken questions. New outside evidence can absolutely weaken an argument. For example, if an answer said: A large fourth study found that older people who slept with night-lights as infants were still significantly more likely to be nearsighted than those who did not. That would weaken the doctor’s conclusion because it would directly challenge the idea that the effect disappears with age.

Just curious, how long have you been at 164 for? How many prep tests have you been consistently been hitting in the mid 160s? I think just getting into the mid 160s vs I have been here for awhile are very two different things.

Although this is a 5 star question, it explicitly tells you that intensive pasteurization eliminates bacteria more effectively than does any other method, including "flash" pasteurizing. Answers A-D COULD be true but AC E definitely has the most support.