I realized that the tricky part of this conclusion is "more likely to survive after their release". I made the mistake of treating this like a general statement, when the argument is comparing the two groups.

When I reframed it as "experimental fish are more likely to survive [THAN traditional fish] after their release" C clearly became the best way to fill the logical gap.

It becomes: some traditional fish die because they are too timid when foraging, expiremental fish are bolder when foraging, therefore expiremental are more likely to survive [than the traditional fish].

Unfortunately balancing study with a full time job comes with knowing and accepting that your time is limited, so something(s) you do will have to be sacrificed to the LSAT gods.

And that SUCKS.

I study about 6-10 hours a week.

For me to find that time, I've had to cut out all weeknight television/couch rot time. I've simplified all my at home routines. I've said no to or put time boundaries on social engagements.

I highly recommend you look at your routine and your screen time and see where your time actually goes.

It helps for me to frame it as a temporary stage of suck. You could spend another 3 years studying off and on for the LSAT, or you can get brutally honest with yourself, embrace that your life will be pretty boring and repetitive for a while, and buckle down for the next 6 months.

The other element here is your mental health.

If your mental health is seriously preventing you from achieving your goals, please seek professional help.

Otherwise get good sleep, eat good food, and try to get some type of regular movement even if it's just a walk around the block.

I definitely fell into the trap with C. But the argument is ultimately that the snowpack will probably melt more rapidly and that specifically will be the cause of more flooding and less storable water. The fact that other areas of the Rocky Mountains have less storable water doesn't actually impact the argument either way because we don't know if that is because of the snowpack rapidly melting or from other issues.

B is the only answer that directly supports the argument that there will be more rapid melting that causes flooding and less storable water.

Another one of those questions where the "right" answer comes down to just a few particulars in the question itself.

I elimated down to B and D and ultimately chose D. However, looking back I was mistakenly confusing the quality of teaching with the effectiveness of teaching as interchangeable.

To be specific, can we say teaching well = teaching effectively? If we assume there are no other necessary requirements for teaching well, then yes.

But we can't say that not teaching well = teaching ineffectively. Because what if someone just teaches adequently? They're not great at it, but they're not bad at it. They teach just good enough to be effective.

So therefore D is better as it simply identifies research as a quality indicator.

The way I picked B and then remembered that sulfur is really stinky and would make smelling things harder in the blind review...

Ugh, I think I misread the question as a main point of the entire passage instead of just paragraph 2.