When does it open again?

So basically,

C)

"For" introduces premise which changes the first sentence to the conclusion which in the stim it was the first sentence offered as premise.

As a Mexican from Kansas this was a passage that hit home. Not to forget, it's PT 68, Fibonacci!

That's exactly what your response to @charlee.vance-1-1-1 gives

Not only is AC (B) attempting to get you by making you assume as JY says "K" that it is already known to only pose a min risk thereby satisfying a necessary condition--which you can't assume bc only a min risk ~= w/out obvious side affects-- but I assumed "not-L" by thinking 10K kids have been given HGH w/out obvious side affects so, therefore, it is not likely to reveal important information about a med condition. The LSAT writers tricked me into making a novice assumption. Who am I to decide it won't sufficiently reveal important information also is 10k enough to assume anything, clearly not.

Would denying the verb or predicate by negating it in instances of "presumes/assumes without justification/warrant be wrong if it failed to negate the alternative hypothesis and used language without negating necessary (GROUP 4)?

#help (added by Admin)

Is it applicable to implicitly conclude should not receive award by the failure contraposing back de morgans of either A or B or C in Rule 2?

#20

B) It seems to me like it negates sufficient. If rational then... paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. Well by stating "Rationality cannot be reasonably attributed to pathological behavior" you are negating the If Rational portion of the conditional statement. Therefore, in turn, allowing them to be mutually exclusive. Thus, making Passage A stand and compatible with B.

D) I choose this answer but I can see how a duty is never mentioned in Passage A but through the LSACs tricky ways of phrasing these AC I fell for it even though I performed the strategy JY uses of reading A then B. Should've not been scared to eliminate after recognizing it's a mish-mash.

I really struggled with D initially. I saw how I had intuitively under time conditions correctly picked A but changed to D for the reason that I thought it was irrelevant. Yes, all schools do this so what?

I came to the realization that in assuming that D is correct as a fact you imply the world in which one University has given students scholarships and enough to provide students where all/most/some keep their scholarships--[creating the assumption that tuition stays constant yet the university must find other revenues to accommodate for the lack thereof students losing their scholarships and at the same time some students finding it harder to afford if say all kept their scholarship so maybe just maybe increases prices/cost in other ways]--and @ the same time that all/most/some don't keep their scholarships [therefore making it just that some students--those that don't keep their $ able to afford] as JY mentions.

How is D right when it merely applies the modifier by including "that" gains a large readership? It seems to be modifying rather than both serving as equivalences of an "and" statement.

#help (Added by Admin)

Kansas S/O

After doing this problem and then coming back to try it again I see why E is the correct choice. Most vulnerable because XYZ, (being cloud cover, or as the video says, obstruction by X, etc.) but why can't you easily just say "well let's look at the cloud cover/radar maps to see if this is true" as a natural response?

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but this thought process initially had me glossing over this answer choice. Any advice on why I consciously rejected this?

#help (added by Admin)

You may no longer be here but I can't thank you enough for this response wow did it completely change my reasoning. Growing up learning Spanish has made the LSAT tough for me having to unveil another layer increasing the difficulty at times (and at times helps lay a foundation for some questions).

At times when I think back to my terrible scores (like terrible), I get down on myself for thinking that way especially after graduating in 2.5 years but struggling with the LSAT longer than I had been in college I appreciate your comment. WOW.

I struggled to find why to attack the support and not conclusion or premise and boy did this clear up 99% of it. I appreciate the comment "Is the flaw that we overlook the possibility of what it means to be present at the scene to assess light?"

Thank you. I will have the answers work for me. Hope you are doing what you love and made it to your dream goal score or school or career!

By your reasoning for crossing out C, "may have been," also is true in that E "may have been cloud coverage". I agree but was there enough cloud coverage to deem the identification unreliable?

I'm struggling with this question to see why the LSAT has us avoid attacking the conclusion or premise? WHY?

I choose C the first time but then thought reckless is not the same as accidents so I thought making the assumption was similar to apples and oranges that they are not the same.

This is why after BL I thought D was right because I thought it was attacking the support rather than the premise or conclusion. Can someone help me explain why it's not necessary to point out the flaw in the argument while it's descriptively accurate?

#help (Added by Admin)

In the grammar of English, "But so far" indicates a premise, sufficient, or necessary universal indicator in answer choice A?

#help (Added by Admin)