Because it says " such as". We know micronutrients are required. That's the important. The such as just give an example of a source of micronutrients, and it doesn't neccesaite just the actual use of those examples.

No it doesn't. Let's explore the stimulus. France had no access to Britiain. So they went and made their own modern thing.

So ask yourself if you dont have access to one source of goods wouldn't you try to find another source?

Then why France instead of doing that made their own ? Becuase they didn't "know" of "any" source, Britain or otherwise that were "accessible to them".

From this statment you can't assume British was the only. The statment is qualified. One is that "knowing' or not is not equivalent to existence. Maybe they just didn't know but it existed.

Also another keyword is "accessible". Maybe they knew of other sources but it was not just accessible to them ( remeber more believable since it's around 1790s).

First D is not even imo descrptively accurate. To undermine means to make it less likely to be effective. D straight out says it make it less effective.

And second even if we are generous to D and say it's the same thing as stimulus say, it's still the premise of the argument.

It is not desirable to keep anynomus (c) because it undermines ... (p).

Way overthinking it. This Is merely a str question. You are not set out to conclusively make the conclusion valid. And you are Brining in so much outside knowledge into this which I think you shouldn't in general.

Conclusion says they are diffeent due to habitat and that was the cause.

Answer choice A present possible alternative cause and denies it ( thus str it). That it wasn't because interpreting with already existing salmon.

But removing another possible cause you are strengthing it.

As simple as that.

As for B who cares about the old native salmons and their history. You can't assume stuff from them. You have to make alot of assumptions to make B even remotely good.

Hope this helps.

Both overthinking and looking at it in wrong way.

Do we know if the 20 percent reduction was due to better health ?? No.

The argument assumes it is because that is one cause of people visiting the hospital less.

What if having the book was the reason they didn't go to Dr. Maybe both families have the same amount of health issues, but since one group had the book they knew if they just stay home they will get better and the other group decided to go because they didn't know what illness they had.

In the above scenario both were equally sick but one group visited Dr less becuase they had the book.

A counter example where less visit equals less health. I have a cold. I read book and decide to stay home and eat more vitamins C. In process It takes me ten days to get better and meantime my bro/sis visits from college and gets sick too. Family as a whole less sick yet we didn't go to Dr because of the book.

Now assume we had no books and I went to Dr and he/she gave me some antibiotics and I got better before my sis/bro came and our family health overall better with more Dr visit.

Hope this helps.

First for E you have to assume this trend is new and only for this year. Which you can't. It could very well be last year was the same.

Even if you assume it's only true for this year, we are not concerned about who did them but the actual numbers of crime committed.

Stimulus more crimes are reported, and the unstated assumption is that there are more crimes being committed. And thus people ( avg citizens) more likely be targeted by crime.

C blocks the assumption argument making. It could people are just reporting it more.

Hope this helps.

I see this happening more often in older lsats. They give you two statment and ask you to do something about only one.

The right answer choice has nothing to do with foster argument. The question statment is asking what could str second statment.

You are not trying strengthen one at the expense of the other.

Double post.

From on top of my mind yes. Sadly I don't remeber exactly where.

They are basically a combination of weaken and str questions.

Answer in one direction supposed to str and other opposite end it supposed to weaken.

It wasn't that big of section from what I remember since they explained str and weaken in more depth.

Anything is possible and at the discretion of LSAC.

Honestly just imo the reason jy eliminate C is not really reasonable ( imo).

Still C is wrong. Stimulus is like If A then B. And conclusion is ( depending how you write it) it is either if not B then not A or if A then B.

Answer choice C is like if A then B. And conclusion is like if B then A.

I hope you can see the difference in form.

Hope this help.

Why not? It could be an epic battle foretold in stories and he was inspired by it and painted. Happens often enough.

We are criticizing the author of stimulus. The same said author says " joker is someone else". Clearly the author is assuming only one person could be the joker based on the last sentence.

A picks up on that flaw. Miller actually being one of the jokers or not isn't really that important. In reality we could even have one joker.

The flaw is in not taking into the account that there could be more than one joker.

At least this is my take on the question.

Hope this helps.

Country Y only eat hot dogs, country X only pizza. B is saying the reason for deficiency is due to diffrent type of diets as I understand.

So what ? We are concerned as to why symptoms caused by defincines ( no matter the reason) varies so greatly from country to country.

Both countries have deficiencies in their diet but like one country shows symptoms more than other. We need to weaken that.

Maybe in country Y there is stigma in regards to mental illness so people hide symptoms ( thus under reported) and country Y people are alot more open minded.

Hope this helps.

Same as it is written. Anything after only is necessary.

If you are a person that reduced stress diminished your sus to ill then you must be a person who is under enough stress ... .

Hope this helps.

Double post.

I think it is a fair assumption to make but even if that is not the case and increase income is random like you mention, you could say it's not because of increase income.

The person who got 10k compared to 1k dollar increase is happy becuase be has more income than neighbors. And the person that 1 k still got 1k more income and is probably still not satisfied because the neighborhood person has more.

Even if random people get more money , we have two scenarios either few people got more and the rest will still be sad because they look at what others got ( thus tend) or second scenario is all got the same for which they will still be unsatisfied based on premise.

Remeber in this question stimulus is king. You have to take it as true.

When you are troubled by something you are concerned about it. Trouble is a word that encompass concern.

But even if you don't see the connection, another way to get to correct answer is by process of elimination. Other answer choices aren't remotely as good.

Hope this helps.

There are only two camps P and W in Harrison University.

We know 38 percent of Harrison students ( which is P+W students combined), take night classes.

Since only 28 percent of W students from Harrison take night class, for us to have 38 percent of all students to take night class, it must be that more than 38 percent of P students are taking night class.

Do a few simple math scenarios and you will see there is no other way.

Let's say 40 percent of all people have a pet . And you know 30 percent are male. Mathematically it's impossible for less than 40 percent of females to have a pet. It must be that more than 40 percent.

Even if females overwhelm males in number still is the same. Let's say 3 out of 10 total males have a pet. And even assume there are 1000 females and 399 out 1000 have a pet.

The total percentage still won't be 40 percent (399+3)/(1000+10) = 0.39801980198 or 39.80... percent.

Hope this helps.

Double post. Replied to the wrong person. My bad.

Since this is a more general question here would be the answer to your dilemma: Practice more, review them and watch video explanations. Keep doing this until you get enough questions you are satisfied with.

Observation: the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.

Explanations: a statement or account that makes something clear

By definition no such things happening here. Why answer choice A is wrong.

An observation would be something like : It is mistaken ... We have observed that in schools that have done this, more teachers were required than less. Therefore ...

The conclusion is made based on the result of the latter two studies. One way to weaken an argument in study type questions is to show that study is flawed. That's what D does.

The conclusion is from a premise that it didn't lead to "Significant change". Thus the assumption is that had the drug been effective it must have had followed a significant change as well ( after the 3 month shortage).

Imo B isn't contrapositive. B is just saying Practicing deception isn't sufficient for " Lying to some one". Basically imo not every one in this context is negating the statement.