Where did you get stuck on?

Was it between B and D, because I can try to explain in my own words.

So for starters, I picked B (in 2 minutes), but still BR'd and was stuck between B and D

But the reason when B is correct goes back to the support structure of the stimulus (remember this is what we want to focus on - role/way),

B says "It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that the editorial defends as perferable."

D says " It is a premise that the editorial's argument relies on in reaching its conclusion."

Now, let's take the stimulus piece by piece, " The town would not need to spend as much as it does on removing trash IF all town residents sorted their household garbage."

So, this is an if -> then statement (conditional),

If TR sorted household garbage -> Town /spend as much removing trash

Cool, so we note this relationship that the editorial gives us, on lets look to the next part.

"However, while telling residents that they must sort their garbage would get some of them to do so, many would resent the order and refuse to comply."

Basically, in short sure if you tell some people to do something, they will do it, but many will not do it and refuse. In this case, some residents will sort their garbage, many won't sort their garbage.

Now, this is certainly a change from what we first read, there's a structure that is forming from what we first were given to now, the second claim.

The first is supporting the second claim, as it details the relationship of if residents are ordered to sort their household garbage, then the town won't need to spend as much in removing garbage, but the second fuels us more in that the editorial inserts something else, oh actually yeah some may sort but the majority will not.

Note, the HOWEVER (that's a signal change into argument).

So, we are reaching a change in this idea of a hypothetical, that telling people to do something means lower idea of spending (hence why we are looking at a cost-benefit analysis in this case).

"The current voluntary system, then, is to be preferred, because it costs about as much as a nonvoluntary system would and it does not engender nearly as much resentment."

So, this claim contains both the conclusion of the argument (The current voluntary system, then is to be preferred) and another premise (it costs about as much as a nonvoluntary system would and it does not engender nearly as much

Note, the BECAUSE (a signal into a premise).

This entire stimulus moves to the conclusion that the current voluntary system is preferable over the nonvoluntary one.

Great, now how does this relate the rest of the stimulus, it's the editorial basically stating that between the current voluntary system and the nonvoluntary system, the first is preferable for all these reasons listed.

Now let's go back to B and D.

Let's analyze D first, recall it's saying that the claim " The town would not need to spend as much as it does on removing trash IF all town residents sorted their household garbage."

Okay, but if we take D as the correct answer, we are basically saying that this conditional relationship supports why the current voluntary system is preferable.

But how can that be when this claim gives support to the following one after it, acknowledging that some will follow while many will not? And if many do not follow, then how can lesser spending even be achieved by this proposed nonvoluntary system? Makes a huge bump in giving support no?

Note, recall that the lesser spending comes from the condtional that if residents sorted their own garbage then the town would not need to spend as much.

This claim isn't a premise made to bring us to the conclusion, but rather fuel the reasoning for the current system, thus... this claim has to be something else than a premise.

Now, Lets look at B, recall it's saying "It is a fact granted by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative to the practice that the editorial defends as preferable."

So, there's referentials in this answer and lets clarify them - IT is a fact (what's a fact? The town would not need... this is the proposed nonvoluntary system).

Okay so lets continue - to the practice that the editorial defends as preferable (what is the editoral defending? this is the current voluntary system).

Now, with this the answer is saying "the proposed nonvoluntary system claim is a fact by the editorial that lends some support to an alternative (remember - some may, many won't) to the practice (the current voluntary system) that the editorial defends as preferable."

This is just what the stimulus is doing for its role.

Sorry if this is long, and I hope this is somewhat helpful.

Please let me know if anything needs more clarifying :)

Going back through my notes and seeing that I did write down "but not otherwise" as a biconditional indicator all the way back in fundamentals and yet... I forgot it here.

I'm gonna lose it, I had it between A and E and still selected E 🥲

Aw, all the love I get now before the LSAT rips me apart :)

I am also interested!

HI!

I am also interested to join, as well!

Hoping for the October or November LSAT!

I guess I'm the only one who gaslight myself in my blind review.

I had the original answer C. 🙂‍↕️

Definitely interested as well!

Class of '21!