The flaw here was so damn easy to spot but it took me forever to figure out what AC matched up. Got it through POE. So frustrating.

Brutal question

Got this right but idk if E is actually descriptively wrong. D is the clear flaw. E is not the flaw that the argument makes (accessibility), but it does seem reasonable to interpret E as saying something like "because the Mona Lisa and every other great art exist COLLECTIVELY (which cover all bases of aesthetic fulfillment possible) any new art that is made is affected by this fact (affected is super weak too so we don't even know which direction we're being affected in)." I don't think that this is an unreasonable interpretation of E. Maybe I'm looking too much into it, but idk, it seems like JY's interpretation is a little too shallow. Regardless, D is the clear cut flaw.

I actually don't think that A is necessarily a flaw. The argument is not concluding that the students must prefer Hall Dining. Eliminating the other garbage answer choices is your best friend here.

Yup, perfect breakdown. JY made it way too complicated in his explanation.

I'm HIM

An easy way to internalize the logic is by understanding that you can't draw a conclusion on the subset because we don't know the size of the superset. The stim and only E do this. For E, there may be 500% more shopping malls in /REH, hence we can't conclude that our mall will probably turn us into a REH, as we do not know the size of the shopping malls set outside of REH.

A is a pretty good argument because we know the size of the set--major malls (city) is the largest bound, hence we can conclude that because most of this set are REH, it is probable that the next one would be a REH in the future.

weird

This is so difficult on so many levels. What a question. Probably the hardest NA question i have seen thus far.

"many" and "subsequently" really got me. I did not like B but still chose it. Lesson learned on relying too heavily on these indicator words.

Amazing explanation

.

What a terrible argument lmaooooo

Lmao this question sucks...I'm supposed to determine whether or not compensating victims is justified? What if all the victims stole that money first? Or are murderers? Or kick puppies? Is giving back money still justified or should their bad karma win out? Answer choices are supposed to stand on their own for certain LR questions, but LSAC doesn't have to play by those same rules? This question is trash. Please somebody prove me wrong #feedback

How are we inferring /successful from that conclusion? #feedback

I think the bigger problem with E is that Ordinance 304 is not a subset of some broader regulation. For B, Ordinance 304 is a subset of "legal restrictions". For the stimulus itself, the G survey is a subset of RT projects. Hence, B matches the overall structure better.

Also, the use of "should" in the opening sentence for E is another red flag.

12 C is seriously one of the best trap answers I have ever seen.

Uhhhh "often" does not mean "most" what? If there were 10,000 shrimp farms, and in 4,000 of them quick and easy profits were made, that would seem to qualify as "often" but not "most." I feel pretty strongly that Jolene does not have an answer for this, much less a definitive "no" to juxtapose with Alex's obvious "yes." The word "often" seems too weak here, much the same way "hardly ever" is too strong in C. This question's difficulty (like many 5 stars) seems to come from ambiguous wording in the answer choices. #feedback

.

All these answers are trash

Brutal first passage

14 is brutal gahdamn

Very good question

A was by far the best answer, but god that "many" in A was so suspect lol.

I made the same mistake.