@ thank you! :)

I have a full-time job commitment, so my journey of prepping for the LSAT hasn't been easy, but I plan on taking at least 2 June PTs per week starting April (1 during middle of the week, and the other at the end of the week), as it is apparent that I will not be able to take ALL the prep tests... This will allow me to take at least 18 PTs. The June 2015 test is my retake btw. I am still trying to finish up with the course and haven't been able to start the LG Bundle. I will split up my week between PT'ing and working on the the LG Bundle. Best of luck to everyone!!

Author’s conclusion is that: the conclusion reached by some doctors that North Americans’ life spans can be extended is not supported.

To understand the author’s conclusion: understand the argument reached by “some doctors.”

Some doctors reach their conclusion from a study that compares a particular set of lab animals (those that were fed reduced-caloric diets) to another set of lab animals (those whose caloric intake was not reduced).

Some doctors support this conclusion with the premise that the former group of lab animals lived longer than the latter group.

No comparison or conclusion is either made or reached from animals in their natural habitats in the other doctors’ argument.

Now the author supports his conclusion with the premise that lab animals tend to eat much more than animals in their natural habitats, which leads to their having a shorter life expectancy.

Author’s underlying assumption is that: the other doctors’ conclusion arising from the comparison of lab animals is not applicable to North Americans because they do NOT eat much more than what they “should” eat, as there is no comparison made among different set of North Americans.

If it were the case that a particular group of North Americans consumed much more than did another group of North Americans – just like the comparison made between lab animals that were fed reduced-caloric diets and lab animals that were not fed reduced-caloric diet – it WOULD be the case that a particular group of North Americans who ate reduced-caloric diets lived longer than another group of North Americans who did not eat reduced-caloric diets.

To most weaken the author’s argument: show that North Americans CAN be rendered similar to lab animals.

Answer choice (A) does EXACTLY this: North Americans, on average, consume a higher number of calories than the optimal number of calories for a human diet.

This hurts the author’s argument because his underlying assumption is attacked.

If (A) were true, now we know that North Americans who eat reduced-caloric diets WILL live longer than the average North Americans whose consumption of calories is higher than the optimal number for a human diet.

Wow congratulations!!!