Was down between (B) and (E) on this one and chose the wrong answer (B). After watching this I understand why (B) is very incorrect.

The negation of (B) states that: The opinion polls on which Astorga's promises are made DO accurately reflect what voters want the new mayor to do.

The negation of (E) states: Astorga DOES actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do.

Do you see how (E), when negated, completely wrecks the argument? If Astorga does intend to do what she promises to do then how is the conclusion that she does not intend to do what she promises justified? The answer is its not, its a contradiction that wrecks the argument and therefore the necessary assumption.

(B)s negation, on the other hand, does nothing. So what if, for example, the voters are lying? Astorga (and she is the key) still could just be saying what she learned from the polls just to get what she wants (in this case to get elected.)

I am trying to resolve all these flaw questions intuitively without any diagramming to improve my familiarity with the flaws and just have better feel for these types of questions so that I can do them quicker. I was able to eliminate (B), (C), and (D) instantly. Took me a solid 15-20 seconds to really see why (A) was wrong and (E) was correct.

(A), tempting as it was, is wrong because of the phrase "caused one another." The rodents and the rotting are co-occurring phenomena but that is exactly whats wrong, THEY ONLY CO-OCCUR NOT CAUSE ONE ANOTHER according to the stimulus.

(E), Right on the money. Eliminating the rodents will do nothing to prevent erosion, lessen the erosion at best perhaps but not resolve the issue since we still have the problem of the clippings piling up.

Hope this helps if you were stuck like me! Moral of the story/lesson learned, If you are stuck between 2 choices, make sure (like JY says) you really understand and intuitively feel what the answers are saying and that they ACCURATELY DESCRIBES the problem.

I think my biggest problem with this exam as a whole is that I constantly overthink the answer choices and make crazy assumptions which lead me down the wrong path.

I had a ridiculously hard time choosing between D and E. After watching this I think that my main issue was with the way the conclusion was worded stating "biased against." I choose E when doing this timed because to me it sounded like if the station had something to loose, then they were going against their interests and therefore not biased. But after watching this I guess the way to weaken this argument is to just say that the station is reporting what actually is the case and prove that they are not biased at all ( neither for or against it and just factually reporting). Also looking back I now see that E requires a huge assumption that reporting against self interest = not biased towards one side or another.

Hey,

I took the LSAT in Staten Island as well today and experienced the same problems with the noise (I looked at how to submit a complaint to LSAC and you can email them. You can find the instructions on their website.) I plan on sending a complaint and I urge you to do so as well so this has a better chance of getting addressed.