Just going to say this is one of those moments where I feel like LSAC is falling for the equivocation fallacy! It really feels like a stretch to say that asking for permission to do something specific with the additional funds, with that specific use already in mind, is the same as honoring "the express wishes of the donors." If we were following this principle, wouldn't the Director ask the donors first what they want to do and try to gain some sort of consensus regarding what they want the excess funds to be used for? Rather than presenting them with one option and asking for permission? I know it's a PSA and the correct AC is what helps to MOST justify, but the wording in AC B along with the presence of AC A, makes this question feel impossible to get correct on test day.

LSAC pmo everyday. gotta "make sure analogies are actually similar enough to be analogized" and here I am being forced to use a horse as an analogue to a damn antarctic seal

#help I am confused because I thought question at hand is whether or not individuals themselves are paying more for cars relative to 25 years ago. But the actual question at hand is WHO is driving up the average price of cars? I am really struggling to see how that is what we are trying to weaken, rather than the idea that individuals AREN'T spending proportionately more on their own cars. Like I think I would understand if stim said "this increase indicates that individuals are primarily responsible for the increase in average car sale price." Then I'd be like OK yeah this is what we are weakening. But the way this is written, I can't see how the contention is NOT around whether people are spending proportionately more on cars than they were 25 years ago, or not. Like, why do we care if the government is buying more expensive cars now? How does that relate to the idea that people are spending more of their money on cars than in the past?

When questions are dumb can we go ahead and name that instead of stretching this to fit into the box of logic that we've been taught to fit ourselves in? Like, there are about a million questions I've done where this reasoning would not stand. I would feel better if this was an MSS question that said which of the following is MOST supported. There is no world in which "significant pay raise" results in more employees certainly being able to afford homes within a 30-minute commute radius of Ocean View. Sure, it could increase their likelihood by simply getting them closer to the threshold they need, but we still have no idea how much they were making before, or how much more expensive it is to live in Ocean View. Not knowing if that "significant" pay raise is actually enough to cover the difference in cost of living and get them over the threshold to actually move makes this unnecessary. Example: They need to be able to put $900 towards rent to live in Ocean View. Currently they make enough so that they can put $500 on rent. Their pay increases such that they can afford $300 more in rent. With the very loose reasoning in this question, I would say that $300 is substantial when they were only able to put down $500 before. So, now they can put $800 towards rent -- great. Now they are closer to affording the rent in Ocean View, but still cannot actually afford it. Just because you are closer to affording rent, doesn't mean you can afford rent. I am really baffled by the reasoning here, and how this could possibly be construed to be a necessary assumption. Perhaps I am too bogged down by my real-world view as a public servant and housing professional, but I don't think any of the assumptions I made in this reasoning were any less reasonable than the assumptions required to get us to E (I actually think they are more reasonable tbh). I've never seen a NA question where the "necessary" assumption is necessary for MAYBE having the effect it is setting out to have, lol. Definitionally no longer necessary

This question is so hard because the passage certainly seems that it is meant to highlight the unique nature of Hopi names, and uses Mill's and Levi-Strauss's theories as context and as a point of comparison. Really struggling to understand how the passage's PRIMARY purpose is to criticize these theories, seems like it is a function of exploring the Hopi's naming traditions.

I just finished a ? whose whole crux was that correlative phenom chains do NOT equal causal chains. i.e. to deduce that the first thing in a correlative chain correlates to the last thing in the chain is unwarranted. I'm confused how this question doesn't negate that logic? Here we are saying ok yes there is a causal relationship between exercise and lowering blood cholesterol levels. And since blood cholesterol levels are CORRELATED with risk of hardening arteries and thus blood clots, we've deduced a causal relationship, moderate exercise lowers your risk of arterial blockage due to blood clots. It seems this doesn't align with other ways we've been taught to think about these.