heres how i thought about it:

the stim describes a negation of a fact based on evidence that would suggest the opposite (as in things are increasing), so theres no reason to deny, but even then it denies.

a is wrong because its about a belief rather than something factual

b is perfect: b describes an effect, gives evidence suggesting its actually happening, but then denies.

c, d, and e are all wrong they do not even deserve being read because all of them discuss positive agreements. automatically wrong.

b is perfect its the only that denies something happening based on evidence that suggests its happening.

so guys instead of using conditionals for these types of questions you can do this since im seeing a lot of people trip by using conditional malarkey that does not work.

First, identify what is the reasoning in the stim. In this scenario, the reasoning is this:

two options are presented, there is an issue with one, so we must chose the other.

Second, pick the one that matches, in this case B.

Then voila, B is the only that matches. Do this, do not waste time drawing its so stupid. This should take like 30 seconds doing conditional malarkey is gonna destroy your tempo.

There is no shot this is a level 5 question. I do not understand why high scorers are having issues with B. The conclusion is about sand removal. We do not care about other contaminants. Why is this answer so sought after?

b is wrong because it would could be referring to a totally different conversation. we are trying to justify why milk can lower blood pressure not that it does not contribute to it.

similarly, the same can be said about c. yes, its good milk does not raise blood pressure but thats not what matters. we need a reason as to why drink milk. c is neutral, we need something showing why milk can help combat. c is no different than suggesting we should drink water or wine.

a is therefore perfect. it gives a reason as to why milk has to be consumed and why its suggested in the conclusion: vitamin D, it contains vitamin D in enough quantities to perhaps offset deficiency

Remember guys, this stim is about why something must be consumed. Not about not raising something.

In this case, just because something does not hurt does not mean it helps, and this is why b and c are wrong and a is right.

no need for conditional malarkey here. b is wrong because it talks about carrying high risk. this is not a trigger that is relevant for the support premise used that we need to bridge to justify the conclusion. the conclusion explicitly says "does not resume following the procedure." does not talk about risk.

relying to much on conditionals is hurting all of you.

bruh i thought this was a disagree and i picked C lmao

add me pls

Literally could not understand the wording of c. im so fucking tired of this test

i scratched a because i figured the answer could not be that simple. yikes.

A, B, and C are popular wrong ac's and I will try my best to explain why theyre wrong.

A: This is a sufficiency necessity confussion. Check the suport under the conclusion. This sentence says aesthetic value (sufficient) cannot be discussed unless two eaders agree on correct interpretation (necessity) A flips them around.

B: Ensures goes beyond the logical strenght of the stim since the stim says "evaluation is possible if" but never talks about ensuring objective evaluation.

C: This one is just plain out of scope because the conclusion is about objective evalutation but c talks aobut discussion. This is out of scope.

E: This one is just completely unrelated to the conclusion we are trying to hold since it talks about how evaluation is best conducted rather than achieving evaluation.

initially i was confused with the conclusion saying "special role outside of university," as i thought-"oh wow, is the ps saying that he wants people other than academics to translate them." I thought, well that cant be right? then i read e and it made sense.

mss is my agony and my despair

yeah theres no way this is a two star what in the fucking dislexia is this stimulus?

i just picked a because it was more direct and simple than b and now im in an existential crisis

what the fuck is this stimulus?

the pilots that the administrator interviewed were from american airlines and air france thats why its b

this is not a 120 level question lmao youre telling me people that get all answers wrong get this one right

The reason why A is right and E is wrong is as follows. 

A is the direct positive assumption: Two conditions guaranteeing that unemployment will decrease. 

Now, E is the contrapositive: If these two conditions dont happen, then unemployment will not decrease.

When we have the direct positive version and the contrapositive we always pick the direct version because the LSAT prefers minimal logical distance. Hope that helps

general rule for why c is wrong: its already stated in the premise. we are trying to demonstrate why hes not introspective and c just restates a premise. not c.

I believe this NA is a check on fundamentals. This is a really good question that we can study from and further learn. So, I will break the ACS here to attempt helping some people out consolidate

A: This is an out of scope answer. We are trying to defend this argument agaisnt a potential weakener. For this type of AC's its good to identify the conclusion first and then seeing if the AC helps solidify or defend it. This AC just does not do that because it is out of scope we do not care if scientists focus research on aliens or anything else. 

B: This goes beyond the scope of the argument as well. The argument is about 50 light year near not more than that. Out of scope as well. 

C: This one is tricky. Now, the reason why c is wrong is because it exceeds logical force. Scientists needing to decipher an answer fully is too strong for an argument, maybe they can just decipher just a little. The word fully makes it too extreme. 

D: This is perfect because IF IT IS NOT THE CASE that intellligente life forms on other planets would want to communite with intelligent life, then it creates an alternative possiblity where life in outer space does exist but they just dont want to talk to us. This completely shatters the conclusion because the conclusion relies on a premise proving lack of existence because of lack of communication. But, what if they did exist and did not want to communicate? Therefore D is perfect because it closes that potential flaw and weakness.

E: This is the same flaw as C; it exceeds logical strenght. Notice how E says ALL SIGNS. Maybe this, like c is not necessary. For instance, maybe these life forms just need to recognize a few. This is the same flaw as C: EXCEEDS LOGICAL STRENGHT.

Now this question is really good because due to answers dealing with logical strenght that exceeds the argument, you can learn to identify these patterns for latter and scratch. I took more seconds than necessary on this question because at first E,C, and D looked attractive until I noticed those extreme language nuances on the AC's.

the reason why B is wrong is because the argument never assumes that ANY (as in whichever failure of the system) will make the air bag to inflate. For example, for B to be true, the author would have to assume that maybe an issue that only affects the computer like for example malware that plays an infinite loop of taylor swift's new album will trigger the airbag. This is why B is wrong.

the only reason i got this wrong was because i did not read the stimulus. i thought the stim described the case of a man going into a local store, i did not read that is was the store. i literally stopped reading the stim at "i talk to people at a local store and they tell me they are not worried about crime in this neighborhood." actually i think i only read this part and concluded c. i should have read

you know what, i initally doubted e because i thought an ac this simple could not have possible been written. it felt like cheese for a mouse. wasted a good minute in this question reassesing what i know from the stim. damn.

lmao this question made me laugh i wasnt expecting the paracetamol in the bloodstream claim

Marx would be proud of me