Apparently, LSAC's insistence excluding answers that would actually complete the task at hand will keep me from doing as well on the test as I know I'm capable of doing.

Literally NONE of those answers explain it for me.

NO.

The question asks for an INFERENCE.

Answer A is literally stated in the stimulus., and is therefore NOT AN INFERENCE, and is therefore WRONG.

I literally could not get thru the word salad of the stimulus.

It's almost 2025, and we're still tolerating this nonsense?

I don't buy this answer.

if Cost of Living Downtown INcreases, Consumers Living Downtown INcreases,

which will PROBABLY lead to Profits of Downtown Businesses INcreasing...but that can only happen IF Downtown Traffic Congestion DEcreases...Answer B doesn't address that (if it decreases or not).

It's a PROBABLY, not a MUST be true.

#feedback

It's St. "Paddy's" Day, not St. "Patty's" Day.

I literally stopped caring about getting the question right after I saw such an easily-avoidable mistake made.

#feedback

I am really put off of this idea by the way it's presented, namely the disrespectful suggestion that we as test takers are (blindly) "placing bets" when we choose answers.

We're choosing what we believe to be the right answer, based on what we understand of the stimulus and question stem.

It's totally possible to recommend marking the questions we struggle with and reviewing them at the end, if we have time, without insulting us.

See, I just did it, and in one sentence, not a full page.

#Help

Kumar arrived 17 minutes past the bell.

Only 5 is given as a grace period.

When I was in school, 17 was more than 5.

Kumar is LATE.

Also, the instructor needs to stop insisting that the problem is lack of student comprehension.

Sometimes, like in this case, it's a lack of student acceptance (read: this student doesn't buy it/instructor has not convinced me that their right).

Quickly moving onto an example w/ a different name doesn't help their case, either.