yes

I think I can explain why C is correct.

In the most simplified sense, the stimulus is telling is that these regulations are expensive to follow which leads some people to have an incentive to not follow them, and therefore we should get rid of them because animals would not be harmed by the removal.

That should make you say wait wait wait.

To use a parallel situation, we have rules about where we should dump paint/chemicals. It's a pain and kinda expensive to follow the rules so some people just dump them down the drain anyways. Using the reasoning from the arument, it would follow that if we took away the rules on how to dispose of paint/chemical substances, the enviornment would NOT be worse off.

Just becasue not everyone is following a guideline due to its expense and incentives not to, doesn't mean that repealing it wouldn't hurt what it's intended to protect.

Here is C edited to reflect the stimulus:

C. It unjustifiably overlooks the possibility that even if certain factors (endangered species regulations) tend to produce a given effect (some people not following them due to negative incentives), they may be likely to produce stronger countervailing effects as well (still protect a TON of endanged species which cancels out the few people not following).

I thought the word drought was too strong to mean less rain

Yes. The passage states that following the emissions standards, Marvel's market share decreased but their sales remained constant, implying that the market got bigger. This means that if Marvel is taking up less of the market, the other companies are taking up more.

AC A states that after the emissions standards, the other companies had decreasing sales. If all the other companies are supposed to be dominating more of the market and have more companies entering to make the market bigger, how could all of them cumulatively have decreasing sales?

It doesn't make sense for Marvel's sales to stay the same and all non-Mavel's sales to decrease as non-Marvel companies dominate the market.

I know this isn't the most scientific answer but this is how I rationalize it.

For question 17: #feedback #help, I feel like J.Y. is not acknowledging Sibley's response for AC C that "we must limit the number of degrees we choose to recognize by name." I assume that's why the LSAT creators put that as an AC. If anyone has any clarity as to why C is wrong I would love the help

My issue with A is that how do we know it's "most" and not half or some or a few

I see the appeal of B but I think a theory is a more universal and fleshed-out idea than just a claim. The passage throws out something that "may" be used as a rebuttal, not a theory. Also, the "rather than observation" part indicated to me that it was wrong because it seemed that the "article of faith" wanted something concrete, not a biased observation.

I am doing the same! The stimulus said we are misled, not that we are NEVER right. It definitely works to pick apart the language!

Thank you!

I though D because less rain = less storms= less lighting

I find that the easiest way to think of "qualify" is to condition or set limits on the argument (more straightforward way of saying "to walk back")

Does anyone have a better explanation for why C is correct? I am confused by the L → BD