What helped me finally realize the relevance was to think of it as two different worlds.

First, consider a world where we no longer export the dangerous pesticide.

Next, consider the current world, where we do still export the dangerous pesticide.

In both worlds, other countries are still getting their hands on the pesticide, and are still exporting foods to the U.S. . Therefore, the practice of us exporting the pesticide does not greatly increase our health risk, because the outcome is going to be the same regardless of our actions.

Hope this helps,

Sure (10 months late lol). The "same origin" idea was completely new to the argument when mentioned in the conclusion. Therefore, for the conclusion to be drawn appropriately, there has to be some link between the initial information and the origin. AC E provides this link.

Weaken Q

C-It is clear that efforts to protect natural habitats of endangered species have been wasted.

P-the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise.

A- It is still possible that these efforts are wasted. What if they've only improved by .0001% in their ability to improve the conservation?

B- Due to the efforts, there has at least been some impact made. Efforts might not have been wasted then. This is good.

C- We have no way of knowing the relevance of such data

D-Tourism? Cool.

E- Efforts could still have been wasted.

Flaw Q

Conclusion- Evidence supports claim that police presence does not decrease crime rate.

Premise- Neighborhoods with most crime have highest police presence.

Immediate thought was, which came first? It is entirely possible that more police are sent to this neighborhood because of the higher crime rates. The crime could have decreased, while also remaining the highest crime rate in a given city.

AC D illustrates this point.

I am also interested.

I think what helped me get over the assumption that Indian's eat curry is that answer choice E states that the Indian curries contain more turmeric. In order for them to contain more turmeric, they must exist. We must accept this as true, as stated in the question.

"Fuck it, I'll just buy a new car." LMAO

MBF... 4 answers are CBT.

A. could be true. The stimulus states no single species could live through the entire area, but nothing about dinosaurs in general.

B. Initially thought this was the correct choice, but nothing states that water can't exist in portions of the northern region.

C. Nothing talks about the inhabitants before the era, so this could be true.

D. CBT... Dinosaurs roamed during the mesozoic era, but not necessarily in the cretacious period.

E. Can't roam the southern half during the cretacious period at least due to it being covered in water.

I'm in the exact same boat, without ever having taken the LSAT at all... Hopefully there will be some space for me in the admissions field as well.

I'm in!