most large nurseries guarantee to sell plants that are disease free is logically equivalent as all large nurseries sell plants that are mostly guaranteed to be disease free?!? ...i woulda had a chance if I thought this way.

Is @KevinLin single-handedly man-handling this course?

A. Singly-handedly but not man-handling

B. Man-handling but not single-handedly

C. Both

D. Neither

E. Not enough information to make an inference

@AliaAli at the end of the course, the drill section will emphasize what we need to study more. The inference questions come easier to me than the PAI, and I know for some of us this could be the exact opposite. As you say, dont fret, there's plenty of room to make up the difference.

@GDatria715 I've noticed I've been getting the middle level ones like level 2 and 3 wrong and level 1, 4 and 5 right - Level 1 less surprising.

@AndranikKarapetian same, the answer choices are getting to the point of where they don't sound right. Most POE knock-outs have been, "it has nothing to do with the stimulus". Occasionally, I'll be stuck on a stumper and have to go thru it mechanically, but the systems taught here have been useful there even though I run over time.

Key take-away is in “Dogs can be useful to humans in ways that cats cannot. A dog is more easily trained to be on alert for strangers. A dog’s attention can be directed by the act of pointing.” Together, these claims suggest that a cat’s attention cannot be directed with pointing. Even though the stimulus doesn't say anything about cats, it necessarily is implying something about cats.

Got it wrong first because I was split between B and E. After listening to the explanation, I'm looking at this as an argument with a strict explanation; A > B, and why A only affects B. The sufficient A guarantees the necessary B. The prompt asks to search for which answer weakens the argument; therefore, challenge the sufficiency condition; that is, it proposes alternate sufficient condition, which only answer B does. There shouldn't be alternate sufficient conditions if a causation is to hold. Answer E challenges the necessary conditions by proposing alternate assumptions, which is fine. To recap, children's first education due to parent's participation in "first teacher program" causes better than average child performance, but nothing else should cause better than average performance.

Thank God I'm not raw dogging the LSAT cause this concept was new to me. You mean to tell me some is inclusive of the term all, too? Do pre-law courses teach this stuff? I missed out.

E, if light breezes were random, then heat factor would be a non-issue. If light breezes were only during the midday heat, then the hypothesis would be reasonable, right?

@Rcotter22 I've been in the insurance business and there's an understanding that people 13yo or less are limited to their responsibility in the damaged caused to others. So the parent vicariously lives through the child up that age. The mother in this case is right to expect that telling the truth would seriously hurt the boy, without knowing for sure if the boy would care, as you say. So I concede. I was focusing to much on the form and less on the content (principle). Tort law is going to be an interesting class. This brings me back to the More Perfect podcast, "Mrs. Graham and the Reasonable Man".

I took the prompt literally, i.e. all or some answer choices strengthen the argument. If an AC doesn't have anything to do with what the question is asking, don't choose it. Select only AC that LEAST strengthens among ACs that do strengthen the argument. Acs B and C addresses the whole set of devices that interfere with navigations systems. AC D is a subset of such. AC A, suggests some correlation. AC E does nothing to strengthen the argument. That's how I thought about it.

Don't we all have varying levels of judging what is a considerable physical or psychological harm to others? Seems like the question is dragging in the test takers own judgment to select an answer. Or is it the key word "reasonable" that allows for this?