I still don't understand how it could be C!

The principle clearly states that they "have an obligation to rectify". However, C says that they are "obligated to TRY". How is this an appropriate application of the principle? I understand the words "try" and "do" as completely different actions.

If Thimble Corporation TRIES to identify and offer the rebate to those affected (but they are not successful in doing so) they failed the principle of rectifying the problem. #help

Can someone please help me understand why D makes any sense? I was drawn to it initially because if it said "It fails to include the possibility that...", then it would make complete sense. But if it "fails to exclude", doesn't that just mean it "includes the possibility..."? Which the argument surely does not do.

So the fruits and vegetables sentence was just intended to mislead you into thinking it should be relevant?

I still don't understand why we are using the two sided arrow.

Doesn't the first sentence of the stimulus basically just mean "The officer MUST have an exemplary record to be eligible"? Which would translate into Lawgic as: Eligible --> Exemplary Record

Why would let's say 74% not also be "almost all"? If 80% is "almost all", well "74%" is just six percentage points apart (almost the same thing), and this would render the conclusion invalid that most of them rejected the Minsk Hypothesis.

Can someone explain the nations aiding each other question for me? I still don't fully understand why B and D aren't technically both correct. My intuition was correct and went with B because it appeared my all-inclusive as opposed to D's "only nations that...", however the Political Scientist does mention that only Germany is capable, so technically aren't both B and D good?

#help

For D…

Let’s not overlook that the stimulus simply referred to ‘observing rhododendrons with uncurled leaves’, it made no reference to which part of the supposed 12ft plant we must refer to (i.e. even if there are uncurled leaves only on the lower half, this still constitutes a “rhododendron with uncurled leaves”).

So is it not a reasonable assumption that rhododendron leaves at a few inches high up on the plant would be exposed to the same air temperature as the crocuses? I feel like this was overlooked.

To be honest, I perceive the assumptions required for A as more reasonable than the assumption for C.

Discouragement can reasonably be expected to deter. Also, even if “predators” was not explicitly singling out “predators of moose”, it is an all encompassing term that would include “predators of moose” under said umbrella (since it is not stated otherwise) and still be applicable to this case. Furthermore, why is “moving into” necessarily indicative that the relevant predators were not there before the so-called “moving in”? Oftentimes in the real world, animals are nomadic and there may very well be a continuous movement of predators (in and out) of the region at all and any given times. If from such point onward, the wolves began deterring said predators from “moving in”, this would thereby reduce the amount of predators in the region.

For C, disease is such a broad term. Could it not possibly be some mild genetic disease common in moose that is never actually fatal? I would say it is a rather large assumption to assume that is must be a fatal disease.

I am just so lost in the reasoning for the assumptions. Can someone help explain when it is okay to assume and when it is not? Thank you.

I am so confused (in general) as to when it is valid to make so-called 'reasonable assumptions'. I selected answer choice C because it "warrants caution". Although the actual argument uses the terms "not been shown to be an acceptable practice", I made the reasonable assumption that if something warrants caution, then it has not been shown to be a reasonable practice. Or if something has not been shown to be a reasonable practice, then it warrants caution.

We have used reasonable assumptions so frequently in previous questions to support the correct answer choices. So when can we and when can't we do this?

I was pretty confused about A being the correct answer, perhaps because the "only" part threw me off. I think I understand it now and I wrote my understanding below. Could someone please let me know if I am correctly understanding this now?

Before accounting for answer choice A, there could have hypothetically been other non-archaeological considerations that would have explained the removal of the mosaics (which would have contradicted the Archaeologist's opinion) which would also have thereby weakened his stance. In eliminating all other possibilities that could have potentially explained the removal of said mosaics, answer choice A helps to justify the Archaeologist's reasoning by eliminating alternative hypotheses that would have stood in opposition.

I still don't understand why both B and A aren't good answers. To my understanding, every factor of the 'A rule' can still be successfully applied to the argument. In other words, if checks all the boxes so why is it not good?

But in D, the answer said "there is no CLEAR evidence", which nonetheless suggests that there could be very strongly supported evidence. Even though it may not be 100% certainty, could it not be 99% certainty? In such a case, there is now at least a strong casting of doubt as to whether modern mammals have relevant deep-diving characteristics that prehistoric reptiles did not. This certainly introduces new skepticism that the original stimulus did not include, thereby adding a layer of weakening. I just would not perceive the argument has simply unchanged after incorporating this new skepticism.

In these question types where it asks us to select an answer that proves/disproves the stimulus, can we stop reading the remainder of answer choices once we find one that seems to work? Or is this a bad strategy?

I was misled by the word 'eradicated'. My impression of this word is that it is gone (for good).

It would have made more sense if the hypothesis said 'It is likely that air pollution suppressed these diseases.", because it would imply that they could return should air pollution go away.

Out of curiosity, are these questions actually pulled from past real-life LSAT exams?

For me, I still do not see D as something that calls the conclusion into question.

A budget is simply a "plan" on what to do with one's money. In other words, "the expense of purchasing lights was not planned"... okay, so what? In my opinion, this does not call anything into question. I see the "budget" as a completely separate component from the installation of lights in this scenario.

Is the assumption in the stimulus that the examined shrimp of each reef is somehow a sample of only the native-born shrimp from said reef? Otherwise, I still don't understand how C is correct.

Sure, the shrimp will always return to their origin reef to breed, but then the current will just re-disperse and mix them back up into the other reefs. Therefore, won't all reefs together just be "one big genetic diversity pool" of all the shrimp (regardless of where they happen to have been born)? In other words, won't every reef just be a melting pot combination of Shrimp 1, Shrimp 2, Shrimp 3?

Any clarification would be appreciated! Thank you.

For those of us who will write the LSAT remotely, will there be a built-in virtual "scratch paper" setting in the test that will allow us to graph/dissect this information on the side while we answer the question?

Can someone please clarify to me why B is not also an equally appropriate answer? In my understanding, both answers B and C serve to "protect" children from "some form of harm" whether the harm is unhealthy foods or deceptive television advertisements.

I am still confused as to why the arrow can be in both directions. The example given is that some cats can be pets. But isn't cat a subset of pets? Isn't pets the larger (necessary) condition in order for cats to be part of it? Just like the example given earlier in the course where cats --> mammals? Could someone please explain and try to clarify the difference for me because I see it as the same thing. Thank you

Is it necessary to answer in the exact same sentence format as 7Sage? I feel like my understanding is good but my answers are never identical to the answers. For example, question 2.3 I wrote "If a swimmer cannot cross the English Channel, then they are not one of the strongest swimmers." as my contrapositive.

Is this satisfactory?

Is anyone else not seeing anything on the videos? This just started happening once I started the RC section. LR was fine.

Why can't C also be correct? The whole argument rests on this idea. If for instance, optimism was not better than pessimism, then wouldn't the whole argument fall apart even more?