Self-study
The conclusion here is that: Athletes who need to improve muscle strength should not use the engineered food.
Premises: Hormones produce growth in connective tissues rather than in muscle mass, which does not improve muscular strength
So, I was stuck between answer choices "A" and "C"
I tried the negation test and thought without both of them the argument falls apart.
I chose "A" because "C" was too strong and thought it was an sufficient assumption.
I'm having a hard time eliminating "A" because, I'm assuming if muscle mass does not increase strength, the premises of the argument falls apart and thus breaks the conclusion.
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-21/
1.) 25/M. Graduated from University of California with Magna Cum Laude. I was born and raised in California. I aspire to work in/for the government, hopefully in the court.
2.) I think my biggest worry is finding the right topic for my personal statement for law school. Additionally, I worry about my gap years, of not having a traditional job post-grad. I don't know if Admissions would like the fact I worked as a private tutor for some years.
3.) I don't really have specific topics yet. I'll decide in a few days and edit it here.
Edit:
A.) I was thinking about writing my PS on how I became passionate about Social Justice and interested in law school in general.
B.) Another topic is summarizing/narrating my academic career, where I performed poorly in high school, had to go to community college made a 180 degree change in my life and graduated in the top of my class.
4.) No/No.