My grieving process for this question:

I think what makes this question so challenging is that we usually see elements of the conclusion in SA answers. I was heading into the AC expecting one of them to talk about the invention of money occurring independently.

Why did I eliminate A? In blind review, I eliminated A because I felt that it was a NA. The negation is all societies have been influenced by at least another society, which would destroy the argument. However, a NA can still be a SA. This AC cannot be eliminated just because it also functions as an NA.

Okay, but how is A a SA?: Let's look at how A interacts with the info already given in the stim. Imagine that there are 1,000 societies. We know that money is universal, so all 1,000 societies must have money. AC A says OK 20 societies are geographically isolated enough not to have influence other societies, thereby providing the conclusion. Note, the conclusion weak and we only need to prove that the invention of money happening independently in multiple societies seems probable.

Key Takeaway: Though we often see SA answers that includes elements of the conclusion, the answers do not always have to. SA simply need to interact with the stimulus to guarantee the conclusion.

Very helpful explanation - I was listening to an LSAT podcast about looking up words that you think you know the definition of (in this case for me, "intuitive"). The speaker said it helped him approach the test more literally.

I was between A and E as well. I ultimately chose E because paragraph 2 and 3 focus on the thematic and linguistic conventions of the corrido, which seemed like it would better fit a book talking about folk song forms. The content felt a little too technical to be in a brochure.

C slightly strengthens Lydia's hypothesis regarding the red squirrels making holes in the trees for sugar. Less cause -> less effect strengthens a casual relationship.

However, D more acutely engages with Galina's argument regarding the concentration of sugar in the sap. Between the two, it more seriously weakens.

I think the test writers could have written a version of this question where C is correct. Strengthening Lydia's argument does weaken Galina's argument. However, the question is asking us for an AC that most undermines!

This was a very helpful way to think about this, thank you four years later lol.

For those trying to eliminate C, it was helpful for me to think of it as repeating information that we already know in the stimulus (that bats are shy and rarely bite).

C just broadens this information to another group (most animals that carries rabies + normal conditions).

@ylenep I also thought this was an attack on the premise. Upon review, the question type, which includes the phrase if true permits the inclusion of answer choice D.

@Dagny I have a hard time with predicting this ones and I found it helpful to think of them as "Which one of the answer choices does the author most likely agree with?"

With this perspective, I have been able to eliminate answer choices that are too strong. For example, in D, "inevitably results in a significant amount of seismic activity" is quite strong language and our author would not agree with this.

@pgb0469327 This is a brilliant explanation, thank you!

For other people who picked C as well, something that helped me was understanding that the question stem asks us to describe a person who wants to make more money, not a person who makes me more.

C - I initially chose C because I misread the questions stem. In Passage A, I think a person who makes more money is happier. But we do not know anything about a person who desires to make more money.

Absurd = Not possible/logical

laughs in a decade later

It helped me to think of D as saying there is an obligation even if a promise can't be kept.

In the example, we know that the promise was not kept. D is saying despite the promise not being kept, there is still an obligation.

Something that helped me with B was reading "not inconsistent" as "does not contradict"

@7SageTutor To add on, for C to be correct, the stimulus would need to provide evidence that dinosaurs have turbinates. This premise suggests that dinosaurs are warm-blooded, not that dinosaurs have turbinates,

@georgiekoithara423 super helpful thank you! the explanation of the nocturnal aspect helped me understand why the AC is not B :)

For those who were also confused by the contrapositive of AC C, the contrapositive I originally wrote was: PD -> Cancelled

I realized during review that I lost sight of what the conditional statement was saying. What if 0 police dramas were produced last season? If this is true, then it cannot provide support for the conclusion that the new TV programs that are produced this season. all of which are police dramas, will be cancelled.

For people who are struggling with the translation for E who are confused about the phrase "if transferred to compact disc", this is not an embedded conditional statement because it modifies/describes profitable.

You may also read this as "...would be profitable when transferred to compact disc". This statement does not provide a conditional relationship or rule for being profitable :)

I think another way to understand B is that it is saying that: Direct knowledge of our thoughts is usually due to our expertise, and we simply overlook instances where we are not experts

The second paragraph says that the illusion of direct knowledge is analogous/similar to what happens to us when we we become experts in something. This is not the same as saying the illusion of direct knowledge is because we are experts.

For those who are having issues with the word "ironically" in answer choice A, I didn't quite like the explanations that I found online about the critics being part of the record companies, thus making the critic's statement "ironic". I just didn't see any tangible evidence for this.

Had to put my ego aside and Google search irony which can mean: "Contrary to what one may expect". It would go against our expectation for record companies to embrace classicism (aka traditionalism) that is even more severe than the kind that critics said Marsalis embodies.

In Marsalis's version of classicism, paragraph 3 indicates that traditional elements can be "recombined" and "reinvented". The record companies don't want any kind of change to traditional music at all, as they are simply re-selling it.

I think E can be an attractive answer because it suggests that our numbers for the ulcers are more accurate.

However, in the event that the other two countries are over reporting their numbers, it weaken hurt the argument that we suffer significantly fewer ulcers. For Strengthen/Weaken questions, I have noticed that the test writers will throw in an answer choice that can be interpreted in two ways (positively or negatively).

An LR perspective on A.C. A and D.

The argument in the passage is that the Shelley decision is problematic. A and E indicate that if the decision is problematic, then something else must occur. This is a confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition!

@SILVIAHAIDARI I was also looking for this and believe that this is referenced in the line,"it (muralism) reflected important innovations in the art world". I think this line allows us to infer that muralism is inspired by modern trends.

If you also struggled to understand "empirical implications",

I originally mistook implications for consequences but the term actually means an inference or suggestion.

With that in mind, the second and third paragraph do serve as empirical (observable) inferences for the claim made in the first paragraph, which is that cooking has an impact on biological evolution.

Hello, is anyone in this thread studying to take the LSAT next year? I live in downtown PHX and would appreciate a study buddy :)