The reason I eliminated C was because it said increased tuition would 'guarantee' a larger applicant pool, but I interpreted the negation of it (not guarantee) as still having the possibility of an increase. So the argument doesn't completely fall apart. Is that a valid way for me to eliminate this AC, or am I misinterpreting it?

@SamLong from the stimulus we know that

• Locally grown apricots and peaches are both very popular

• Peach trees cost less to purchase/plant than apricot

• Peach trees bear fruit at a younger age

We don't know how much of each apricot/peach production there is at baseline. Say avg annual locally grown peach production in the last decade was 1000 and apricots were 500, but in the last several years, the peach production decreased 'dramatically' (say half, that seems pretty dramatic). So in the last several years, the avg locally grown peaches/apricots are 500 each. If we know that peach trees cost less and bear fruit at a younger age, then it still seems better to buy the peach trees.

But again, we don't know the baseline. This might be why JY said it's irrelevant. This is just one edge case to show why E would not weaken!

On top of that, the amount of peaches being produced doesn't really change why we should choose one over the other. Just because other local farms have been growing less peaches, doesn't mean it's better to grow apricots instead.

@MayaVM I think JY used rising BP instead of lowered BP just so we can see that drinking milk has a causal impact on rising blood pressure, not that it causes the blood pressure to rise

@RamseyEaton I'm not sure what you mean by valid inference. You're right that IF --> SI and PGL --> SI is equivalent to (IF v PGL) --> SI but AC C only states that PGL --> RoL

We can conclude from this that

PGL --> (SI and RoL)

But the conclusion remains as IF --> RoL, and AC C doesn't prove this relationship.

lmao

OMG I DID IT

@LSAT1011 We are meant to take them as true, and we don't have to question whether or not the bullhead catfish is the most populous. We already know that the recent studies suggest they are. But from the existence of this recent study, the argument assumes that the local fishing guide knows about it. TLDR, our focus isn't the truth of how populous the bullhead catfish is, it's on the local fishing guide's belief.

@rt1234 i don't think so because we already know that there is a positive correlation between sunscreen use and incidence of skin cancer from the sun (even though the cancer data we see today is from sunscreen data of the past)

@cstevenhively wouldn't we only need to satisfy either cancer or heart disease (or both) because it's a disjunction?

@nmalek You’re not wrong! You’re stating equivalence laws that haven’t been brought up and I’m not sure if it will get brought up in the 7sage lessons. The parentheses indicate that the sufficient condition for the contrapositive in 5 is:

/(perennial plant AND elongated stem)

If you want to get rid of the parentheses, you have to distribute the negation to the perennial plant and distribute it to the elongated stem. But when you do that, the “and” becomes “or” and it becomes:

/perennial plant OR /elongated stem

It goes the other way as well. If it was:

/(perennial plant OR elongated stem)

Then distributing the negation would become

/perennial plant AND /elongated stem

It’s called DeMorgan’s Law if you want to search up a YouTube video about it to help you… I am sure it will explain it better than I have. But I don’t know if this is super important for the LSAT!