-Total # of registered/licensed CS in FH and every other neighborhood. The dilemma is such that the author claims that the stray CS belongs to FH simply because it has more registered/licensed CS than the other neighborhoods.

-The problem with the claim/support structure is that we do not know how likely CS owners are in each neighborhood to register/license their CS's.

-So, if CS owners in FH are more likely to register/license their CS's, then it could be that the stray is actually part of an enormous # set from the other neighborhoods. For example, If this is indeed the case, The other neighborhoods can have 4000 CS among its neighborhoods but those owners are simply less likely to register/license their CS's for whatever reason. This scenario would make it more likely that the stray actually does not belong to FH and very likely belongs to the other neighborhoods.

-Inversely, If the FH CS owners were not more likely to register their CS's, then it might mean that the # of registered/licensed CS in FH compared to the other numerous neighborhoods is actually representative. In essence, this means that if FH has 400 CS registered, perhaps its total # set was 500 CS. Moreover, we know that FH has a higher # of CS's than the other neighborhoods. Hence, the other neighborhoods could have the same total # set of 500, but among those owners, only 200 registered/licensed their CS's. This scenario would make it more likely that the stray actually does belong to FH and not the other neighborhoods.

Interested!!

Same^^

I thought that "A" weakened the conclusion/premise. If people are unable to travel to the rec center, doesn't that weaken the argument that "Closing the rec center is a bad idea"? #help (Added by Admin)

The problem with this question is that realistically AC A, both people would agree. In the real world, these two people would agree that ANYONE who drinks and drives poses a threat. The word "substantial" is subjective. One social drinker can have a drink and drive drunk and end up killing someone. That death of one person can be deemed "substantial" to society. This is a question I would deadass take up with the LSAT writers and argue my case. The word "substantial" is too subjective. Both would agree that ANYONE who drinks and drives poses a threat.

I picked B then changed my answer to E. Can't believe I changed it last minute. Don't doubt yourself. Lesson learned lmao

Interested!!

Interested in joining discussions!

Interested!!

Interested!

The only problem with D is the word "assumption." It says that the biologists "agree that frogs are DEFINITELY related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved." If you state something as an absolute (Definitively), how can this be considered an assumption. There is no "assumption" present here. We are given that biologists absolutely agree that this fish is somehow related to humans. That's an absolute statement. If the word "assumption" was replaced with the word "assertion," it would make more sense.

Interested!

Technically speaking, if you are genetically predisposed to heart disease, there might not be anything you can do to mitigate the risk of heart disease. Maybe you live a healthy lifestyle and exercise a lot but still get heart disease. This was my reasoning for not picking "E."

I'm definitely interested in joining!

Interested!!

I would like to join!!

Interested!!