for Q3 should we not take the following:

things cost more → (people buy less)^(people use less)

/(people buy less)v/(people use less)→ /(things cost more)

not sure if I can think of a counter example but I am worried that swinging around levels of significance can create a potentially misinterpretation of facts.

is it always the case that if A is significantly greater than B implies B is significantly less than A?

I want to say yes logically, but I am worried that in some contexts the idea of significance is different depending on the viewing angle.

for purposes of LSAT I concede this is a non issue, I am mainly curious other's thoughts from a philosophical / thought provoking lens.

Q5: Maybe I am being overly pedantic, is it of "successful novels" being referenced to those, or simply "novels"

because it seems the comparative is for the "MOST" of successful novels.

I second (third) this notion. the objective concept of the sentence is a relationship on X and Y

I came here to say this. Winds to me is clearly the objective concept of the sentence.

#3 is it not the case that the existence of something is the object portion of the predicate?

at the risk of becoming overly pedantic, wouldn't the first sentence serve as a such a premise for the second sentence being a minor conclusion? It does seem to support it directly as we studied it in Q4.

do we treat minor conclusions are premises?

I got to say, that even in BR, I read the last sentence and decided it was not important which is a MISTAKE. every sentence is informative to the answer choices we eliminate or choose. I needed to give credence to this important information since I was fence sitting on B and E.

I re-read this passage four times, and even after slowly going over it, and recognizing the reference to fighting ability toward the end, I got question 20 wrong each time.

I suppose answer choice A is too good of a trap, what makes it a good trap? it makes you think it right be being such a possible easy answer. Nothing in the LSAT is very THAT easy.

So I now approach things this way, if it feels TOO easy, then it is porbably not correct meaning there should be at least one other answer choice as a candidate.

I chose the the correct answer first and then C in blind review. The gut instinct was correct. The blunder was failing to recognize that strengthening here is about eiher supporting the proposition or attacking the alternative proposal. With the greater time, I allowed myself to add information that is not presented. that is a huge red flag in LSAT. if it isn't in the stimulus or presented as true in the answer choice, then it does not deserve consideration.

Also, is not the reasoning for the argument that the corporations are doing the influencing? The strengthening must support the reasoning not only the argument in my understanding.

#feedback