are A and B wrong because they are putting the conclusion in the place of a premise in the answer choice? For an AC to be correct, does it need to follow the format of "presumes that PREMISE"

Neither of the two populations of sockeyes having bred with the native salmon (A) increases the likelihood that the sockeyes' having adapted genetically to each of their habitats is the reason for them differing genetically. A is ruling out an alternative explanation.

Notice why A and E are wrong. They each take information from the environmentalists beliefs and present it as a fact. DO NOT fall for these trap AC's. One cannot take someone's belief and write it off as a real world fact, which is what A and E are doing.

It's a way to extend the length of each lesson to keep you subscribed for longer, thus resulting in more $$ for these guys.

This made me laugh lol just know that so many others feel the same way. Just push through

but couldn't you also explain answer choice C using CNN?

Here's another tip. Choose the ONLY answer that does not bring in any sort of outside information. If an answer choice gives us information that wasn't given to us in the stimulus, why would you choose it? You really have to stick to just using the stimulus for everything you know.

when are you taking lsat?

basically, because we knew that mammoth ivory importation wasn't banned, it follows that ONLY mammoth ivory would be imported. It says that there was a SHARP increase in mammoth ivory importation and we know that customs didn't know how to distinguish between elephant and mammoth ivory. Why would there be such a large increase in importation of ivory? Well, smugglers took advantage of the fact that there was no method of distinction between the types of ivory (therefore they could sneak elephant ivory in there).

so I plan on taking in oct and november and I struggle to see the benefit of PT's at this point if people this far along don't know how to approach most questions. Obviously, getting familiar with it is beneficial but I feel like you're just wasting PT material by blindly answering questions with no methodology

this is the best explanation I have seen for it and this is how I used my intuition on this one. I know that lawgic may be important but this realist approach to breaking it down is the best way for anyone to understand.

what does it mean by "Affirming or satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition"

if we understand these already, can we just skip over them? I feel there's no purpose in adding complexity or more context to something we can easily understand on it's own.

is getting the contrapositive even necessary if we already understand the originally intended, english meanining? What's the point in adding an extra step besides seeing another way to interpret the sentence

was this part only super relevant for logic games?? I know it still is important but it seems tailored towards that.