On results day, will we be able to review the correct answers? I can’t gauge my performance either. I was 0.1 sec late on guessing for the last question in LG and the timer went out. 😔

I have been studying this flawed reasoning question and think it could help. The argument has logical indicator from group 1 (the only) introducing sufficient condition. The SC is a vehicle with high resale value, NC is a well maintained vehicle. The mistake the argument makes is that the follow up to the first logical statement (ie. the conclusion) confuses the necessary condition for the sufficient condition. The two are just flipped and you would have to flip and negate.

I believe the other way around (confusing the sufficient for necessary) looks similar, but it’d be great if someone could provide another practice question. I feel like this question was a little too cut and dry for LR. Hope this helps.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-06

I followed your thought pattern and answered A because I thought that it was 'a' conclusion drawn in the argument, and misread the 'the'. I see now that if the stimulus omitted the third sentence completely, it would still be a complete argument, because the latter two sentences offer support for the first two sentences. This is the reason why I think I can rule it out as a sub-conclusion and argue it's a premise.

Interested

I assumed their sample is representative as well, so this is why I chose C, thinking there's just a few bad managers at the sites. If the facility knows an inspector is coming in that day, aren't they going to improve their production? Maybe too far down the rabbit hole.

This is so helpful. It is jarring to look at the clock and see how much time I’ve spent reading. Good to see your results showing your method worked!

Interested. In Out games?

Yes, I think your reasoning is similar to mine. I liked this AC the best because using "may believe" did not make the statement an absolute, where D & E were using absolutes or words to proclaim facts. The author is stating that some people's opinions/beliefs will be overturned because of the process to dam rivers, etc. He/she isn't an expert so I don't want to conclude his argument with an absolute.

I wondered the same thing. I crossed out this answer choice because I didn't think the current theory was at all related to EQ data mentioned by the author, so it was not the main conclusion of the text. But then I took a step back and said the author's premise for their counterargument to the theory is that EQs [should] create enormous amounts of heat [that have so far gone undetected]. Now, I am labeling this statement as the author's set of EQ data. But you do have to infer that their argument can be labeled "data". By process of elimination, I took out answer choice E, C, and A. A is context for author's argument. D is premise for author's argument. That leaves B. Admittedly, I spent way too much time getting to this conclusion.