Argument from negative consequence:

If you do A, then negative consequences. Therefore, you shouldn't do A.

If you pass the bill, negative econ. consequences will be the result. Therefore, don't vote for the bill.

There's no support other than the speaker stating neg. consequences may/will happen.

I did not create conditionals, I went through and eliminated each answer choice until C made sense. I reaffirmed this answer choice by turning the question into a main conclusion question since the question stem is a little different this time stating "the argument is structured to lead to the conclusion that..."

The section with "although some anthropologists claim..." was a little trickier to conform into an argument but if you look closely when moved to the front of the stimulus it fits like a typical rejected study that is used for context to introduce the author's conclusion which could be answer C. It took a little longer but nonetheless answered correctly.

Sharing some thoughts :)

1. I totally thought I had this question correct. I choose E. I skipped A because I assumed (wrongly) that a conditional statement (If..., then...) could not be the conclusion but you can't trust the LSAT ever.

2. Additionally, I wrongly identified the conclusion as the principle ("An act... damaging.") But after listening to JY it became clear that although it is a principle it is SUPPORTING the conditional statement reinforcing the fact that the first sentence is indeed the conclusion.

3.Lastly, I should not have fallen for answer choice E because it mentions "other societies" which threw me off at first and made me think this can't be the right answer. But I was still more skeptical of the conditional being the conclusion which lead me to wrongly choose answer choice E.

All in all this question taught me a lot. The LSAT is evil and will always find ways to stump your psyche. And as long as there is one thing wrong with an answer choice (i.e. "other societies in answer choice E making it way out of scope) it will 100% be wrong.

I was talking to an admissions person about rankings and a lot of schools buy their spots to get to the top and it can be very unfair. You also have to consider, that by going to a higher ranked school you're gonna have to compete more to get to the top. If you're not part of the top X%, having that school on your resume won't matter. I would talk to current students and make sure you feel like it would be a place you feel will make you into a good lawyer, because in the end that's what matters is getting the skills needed to get you employed.

I chose D and realized I did not connect the percentages to numbers concept. Just because most of the money went to treating with nonstandard/ineffective treatment does not necessarily conclude that less money was spent. There could have been more money for funding disease X in both standard and nonstandard treatments. Therefore the only way to make the argument valid is E.

i'm in too!

I was stuck between B and E. I choose E because B only mentioned movies, but in retrospect answer choice is is too vague and weak for it to be correct.

I am interested!

Thank you for making the schedule!