Not entirely certain why I got it right but I guess I should trust POE more because it took 1:30 over time, just repeating in my head why the four other answers were wrong

@tar C mixes up sufficient and necessary. That is to say, if we were to negate C, then the argument could still be true, because it would still be possible for the increase in tuition and fees to lead to a larger applicant pool, it just doesn't guarantee that that would happen.

"don't use the negation test in the real test" bro it took me two second to negation test B and E and got it right 30 seconds under the wire. that thing WORKS

No Resolve, Reconcile, or Explain...?

@tar I think this is a better way to explain it, because you are right that he is making that assumption: It doesn't matter to the argument whether they are only used for engraving, the argument only cares if they are used for engraving at all. Therefore, this answer, which only makes clear that the pin-tip are used only for engraving, is incorrect. It's not useful in any way (doesn't add anything important) and doesn't make the conclusion follow.

@MichaelJoyce The eligibility aspect is the sufficient condition, you can't get anything if you aren't eligible, even if you deserve it, and the conclusion was about who should be given the award, not who deserved it. Essentially, Penn being "simply ineligible" and Franklin eligible is what made A correct and every single other answer wrong.

I got the question right, but had no idea why B was even "wrong" necessarily, I just thought A was logically stronger. That sufficient/necessary explanation cleared some things up that I think will help me avoid wrong answers in the future

Wouldn't having different moral convictions mean there is no consensus, and therefore no meaning?

@A man has no name It's the little button under the title that says "show question". Sorry if I'm too late to help.

@MaryamChadegani We're allocated 6 pages of scratch paper.

Pliny was NOT of Aeschylus' time, he was Roman! That's a 600 year difference, there, video.

@DanFarrell Yes, the passage doesn't say whether or not any antibiotics have been used against it at all, so it is unsupported.

@gabrielfermin54 this sounds like a really great way to drill, thanks for the advice!

@Gotham You haven't done anything wrong, the counterpositive is just a restatement of the original, and in the case of "unless" it's really no different. You got the same logic out of the statement in the end, so it's fine.

@nml #2 was fun. I finally got it once I cut joffrey out of the equation entirely (i finally realized he's just implied for all of them) and realized including jon made a different chain

@Sameer Ahamad Yeah I was thinking the same thing. 1. some cultivars vs. other cultivars 2. their proximity to sorghum 3. some cultivars. I think the reason this is wrong is because some vs. others isn't specific and there isn't a real "winner". However I also think that as long as this strategy is helping you better understand the sentence, their answer doesn't really matter.

@Latenightlogic option B is wrong because it simply doesn't have anything to do with the argument in the stimulus. The stimulus isn't making an argument about corporations in general, they just aren't relevant, because they aren't brought up in the stimulus at all.

@owen3480 The subject-object is necessary because some sentences/clauses cannot be complete without them, I think because these specific verbs require an object. For example, "Thomas Jefferson expanded" isn't a complete sentence, and more importantly, it isn't giving you all of the (simplified) information you would need to complete a hypothetical LSAT question.

@Jakobmisey this is definitely true but I recommend looking into "hyper-skipping" as as a skill, its basically where you force yourself to go with your gut when you've hit a wall on a question

The disney argument is the strongest because it leaves no doubt between each of its claims as to the truth of the conclusion. The tiger argument is the second strongest because the burden of proof is lower -- the conclusion only claims that some mammals are dangerous, which it proves by giving an example of one dangerous mammal. However, it is weaker than the disney argument because the claim itself is weak. The cat argument is the weakest because its burden of proof is too high, and only utilizes one piece of circumstantial evidence.