spent way more time than i should have figuring this out and i still have no conclusion.

one thing I did learn is that you just need to get over it during the test. I let this question infect me and when i went back to do 21 (i initially skipped) i missed it when it should have been free.

i was so stressed about this that i wasted time and then couldn't even focus on another question, when i should have only missed this one in the section.

dont let the lsac play their mind games guys we got this!!

to me it helps when you zero in on the task which is evaluating the argument. the argument is

premise: EH have bold fish. conclusion: EH fish are more likely to survive.

if c is false, then there is no argument and no relationship between the premise and conclusion. I think this question is kind of supposed to be a gotcha for people who over-rely on the negation method for NA questions. Yes, you could probably dream a world where this is negated and the argument stands, but ultimately this is needed to link the premise to the conclusion as the argument intends.

this is sufficient assumption, not nec. assumption. that AC wouldnt be right if it was necessary. sufficient just has to create a world where conclusion possibly works. as in the conditions are sufficient, make it possible, for the conc. to be drawn

necessary assumption means the conclusion cannot exist if it isnt true. so youre right the conclusion can exist if it isnt true, but that's not what the question is asking

in 9 europe seems to delineate an area where in 11 it seems to zero in on the different proverb traditions? like maybe you could say african american literature comes from america but it is not necessarily the same as mainstream american literature? thats how i thought about it but idk

It helps to remember that CAR THEFTS dropped. C speaks to the number of thieves apprehended. It would be correct if the stim said that "THIEVES arrested for car theft rose."

How would the overall number of CARS being stolen be affected by the small sample of cars with the beacon? Even if every car with a beacon was stolen and apprehended, it was such a small sample who had them. So you are assuming not only that enough cars had beacons to be significant, but also that they all actually ended up being stolen.

Compare to E, which requires less assumption.

for me it helps if you remove the glutamate part:

C: oxygen starved cells causes LTBD

why? because glutamate kills cells if leaked from oxygen starved cells

AC: and the only way it can get in the brain is if it is leaked from oxygen starved cells

i mean, i still got it wrong. but at least i get it now

I think relationships and your identity fall into the grey area of life. Your goals, circumstances and those of the people you deal with have infinite divisibility that make no two situations exactly alike- I remember an LSAT stim that talked about riddled basins of attraction and how even undetectable minute changes can make it impossible to repeat an experiment because the starting conditions can never be replicated exactly. I believe those things don't lend as well to logic- or broad generalizations from people who aren't involved in your life (sorry, Don). So to me, there is no logic, just comparing the relative weight of the things you know and the things you want.