To explore a harder version of this question, where it isn't clear that the first sentence is Context through the phrase "It is a given..", lets re-write the argument without it:

"To be an intriguing person, one must be able to inspire the perpetual curiosity of others. Constantly broadening one's abilities and extending one's intellectual reach will enable one to inspire that curiosity. For such a perpetual expansion of one's mind makes it impossible to be fully comprehended, making one a constant mystery to others."

Here, the first statement now becomes a conditional statement that needs evaluation. Under conditional logic:

If someone is intriguing (I) > they are able inspire the perpetual curiosity of others (IPC).

I > IPC

2nd statement: Broadening and extending (BE) > (IPC)

FOR (Arg support)

perpetual expansion (BE) > impossible to be fully comprehended + constant mystery > (IPC)

Even with this version, it's clear that the conclusion is the 2nd statement and not the 1st because the only other statement (3rd) in the text is connected to it via a premise indicator (FOR), and the 3rd statement serves to support the connection between the two concepts in the 2nd statement, and does not talk at all about the relationship between being an intriguing person and being able to inspire the perpetual curiousity.

To also see why the 2nd statement isn't a premise for the 1st statement is because they both have the same necessary condition but completely different sufficient conditions.

Here's my explanation on why B is the correct answer over E

The argument concludes that it is wrong to determine that someone has Strep (A) if the only evidence is that there's Strep bacteria in their threat (only B), since A does not occur unless the host is physically run down (C)

Answer Choice B (not be confused with my variables here) is the correct answer because it follows the same logic when you shift the variables around. It says:

• One cannot predict that a plant will bloom (A) if the only basis is that it receives >6 hrs of sunlight (only B), since A does not occur unless B and C (alkaline soil).

• Only difference is that this AC includes both B and C as the necessary conditions, rather than just C in the argument.

Answer Choice E is incorrect because it states:

• One cannot be presumed to be hyper (A) on the basis of a high reading for BP (B)

  • This has already differentiated from the argument since it does not say "sole basis" or "only evidence" (only B)

• It then also says that A is only classified when people have chronically high BP (B over a long period of time) - not a separate condition.

C: without math, the natural sciences wouldn't have made such progress.

C: No observation is worth serious attention or effort unless it is precisely stated in math terms

M: Disagree - stating observations in math terms is the hardest and last task.

M: You can state observations in math terms only when you have given serious attention to them first.

(analytics per Aug 2025)

A (2nd most popular answer - 13%):

• incorrect because C and M disagree over the role/relationship between observations and quantitative conversion, and this AC mentions only one of them

• C agrees, and M doesn't say anything that indicates she likely disagrees - M does say math is the "last task" after exploring the observations, but it doesn't mean that she think that math couldn't have significantly affected the advance of NS.

B: Not enough info, general statements

C: Not enough info, general statements

D: highly logically accurate to whether engaging with NS is dependent on quantitative terms.

• although requires reader to assume "successfully doing" to "serious attention/thoroughly explored", which is closer than "such progress" mentioned in first line.

• don't get confused with "such progress", even it could be applicable - the subjects used in the premises for both speakers are slightly different

E: same as B and C

general note: question took me a minute too long because I got caught on 'accepts the principle', just because Julia includes the premise of Marie's principle - just a mental note for harder questions that might attempt to do something similar.

Some "frameworks" I'm seeing as I'm going through the lesson:

• Just like the LSAT, identifying major assumptions that each perspectives makes about the topic question can help develop a more nuanced perspective. For example, the perspectives that seem to favor colleges not emphasizing career preparation generally assume that the question is asking if emphasizing career preparation over the liberal arts is beneficial for university students. Multiple OTHER ways to think about the question could be:

  • What conditions does this emphasis of career preparation entail? In addition, what are some different ways of thinking about career preparation, and are they any methods that has the least 'negative' tradeoffs? Or are these tradeoffs unavoidable?

  • Logical analysis: Given that we know the traditional goals of college, does the accomplishment of those goals prevent the simultaneous emphasis of this new career-focused goal?

• So how do we build an essay off of a set of different conditional situations? If we provide multiple different situations in which the proposed action is good or bad for students, are we not flip flopping between sides? In reality, I think this provides room for simple rebuttals based on what is more likely:

  • Example Rebuttal of one conditional (after thesis): Obviously, if colleges decided to emphasize career preparation over delivering a high quality, inquisitive liberal arts education, I think that would be an overall detriment to students. The university should not be mainly focused on training students in skills or areas that maximize the likelihood of being hired, as this would likely leave a gap in critical thinking and intellectual skills that college uniquely provides young adults.

  • Continued (Pushing argument through different conditional): Instead, I think it would be more useful to consider the group of solutions that could best balance these two seemingly 'conflicted' interests. First, to evaluate the current balance of these two factors in the current system of higher education, I think that an increased emphasis on career preparation is warranted, especially given the economic context of the world we live in today. The idea that college should be a space for self discovery, exploration, and social development definitely holds validity given the lack of anything remotely similar to it in every other part of modern society. The idea that college should provide that opportunity without sufficient emphasis on how to translate that growth into a career or at least an accurate understanding of one's post-collegiate can be problematic, and is demonstrated by trends we see today.

  • Continued: [Define sufficient emphasis] [Define the specific trends] So what does sufficient emphasis without sacrificing the core values of liberals arts education look like? I don't think career preparation necessarily needs to be oriented towards the goal of receiving a well-paying job right after graduation, and it is understandable as to why opponents of emphasized career preparation believe that it would be harmful for students in this context. Instead, if we think about career preparation as a widely varying process that could include exploration of the careers available to students depending on their self-determined interests, identification of potential career or academic goals, and long-term planning to determine different pathways for achieving those goals - it is easier to see an emphasis on career preparation not as universities 'molding' their graduates into over-specialized uniform identities, but as universities leveraging their resources to help students define a clearer picture of their futures, whether long or short term in scope.

• Now, with your 'meat and bones' determined by just crossing of an aggressive / assumptive conditional of some counterarguments, and then exploring a more 'balanced' version of the discussion, you can then build further support by:

  • [Historical Context] There are two major reasons why increasing emphasis on career preparation through the aforementioned methods is highly likely to benefit students. First, there has been a dramatic increase in the average difficulty of obtaining a well-paying job after college, even for those in highly technical majors such as engineering or computer science. Long gone are the days of showing up unannounced at the office, handing in your resume, and being highly likely to receive a job offer. Today, companies have a far higher skill floor for expected candidates, and hiring processes have become much more efficient for sorting for talent. Every industry - even academia - has a certain set of requirements that every student needs to be aware of before they attempt to break in. Whether it's a design portfolio for a corporate marketing position, a set of refined writing samples for an English major looking to become a columnist, or the classic summer internship in anything from engineering to public policy, there are checkboxes that every aspiring student needs to be aware of. As someone whose parents always emphasized the importance of career stability, I naturally tended towards finding these prerequisites once I had found an industry that I was interested in, and further benefitted from being an engineering major. However, a lot of my peers with majors that had less clear career paths seemed to avoid career preparation as this daunting, ambiguous, and overwhelming task - and I believe this to be a result of poor career support by universities. I had friends who were incredibly talented creative writers, but had no idea in the slightest how to kickstart their career, and no one from the university to speak about that type of thing with.

Ran out of energy but just some ways of going about it.

Hi, also in the same boat of aiming to break into the 173-175 range, would love to join

Here's a way this question can be broken down simply: (also see @ 's excellent explanation):

• Conclusion: Total Bank Lending is less than it was 5 years ago

• Premise 1: Interest rates banks pay to borrow are higher than interest rates for loans (lending) to large, financially strong companies.

• Premise 2: Banks will not lend to companies that are not financially strong

• Premise 3: Total Bank lending to small and medium sized companies is less than it was five years ago.

So off the bat, we see the size of companies as a comprehensive list:

• Large, Financially Strong (FS)

• not FS

• Medium

• Small

P3 checks Small and Medium off the board - we know their lending is down.

P2 checks ALL companies that are not FS off the board. Why? They're currently not lending to these companies, which is the minimum, so we know companies that are NOT FS are NOT receiving higher lending NOW than they were 5 years ago.

• This also covers Large, not FS companies

Now, the ONLY remaining group to cover is large, FS companies, but P1 only mentions that the interest rates for banks to lend to these companies is higher than the rate they borrow at.

• So we need an AC that either explicitly states that Large FS companies are NOT receiving higher lending, OR

• We need an AC that ties this lending rate disparity to not receiving higher lending.

AC (A) is the only AC that does this > by saying that banks won't lend at lower interest rates than they pay to borrow, it links with Premise 1 to result in the following:

• Banks will not lend to Large, FS companies

• When linked with the same logic as P2, it covers the last 'group' of companies and makes the conclusion valid.

This is definitely a difficult LinkA and SA question that involves quick recognition of sets and supersets, but I hope this "checklist" style way of seeing this question helps!

anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought

The key difference between answer choice A and B is that A uses the subject "one" in the conclusion whereas B accurately represents the subject by saying "everyone"

This is a great example of how POE can be used in these curve breaker questions, without needing to fully understand the complex logic that goes into E.

This is an LR style question - the answer needs to strengthen the relationship between more species needing protection (endangered species) and an increased number of species.

A: Irrelevant - This one can look confusing, but increased difficulty enacting protections doesn't actually relate at all to the relationship we're looking for

B: Irrelevant - the likelihood of what type of species results through increased classification doesn't mention endangered species or protection at all

C: Irrelevant - Similar to A, as it also mentions protections of endangered species, but doesn't mention anything related to increasing species

D: Irrelevant - Again, only mentions one part of the puzzle > favoring phylogenetic species concept means more species, but theres no mention of protecting species

E: On the surface, it kinda looks irrelevant > it has the mention of endangered species, but where is the tie to increased numbers of species? It actually lies in an idea that D introduced > that those who favor the PSC (phylogenetic) want more species.

• In addition, it finally gives us a logic framework - if they're LESS likely to contest an established species classification if none of the population is endangered, we can assume the contrapositive, which means they're MORE likely to contest a species classification if there are endangered population

• Even here, its still SUPER murky as to how this question works, but this is the only answer that comes close to mentioning both

• I picked this one being 50/50 on what that answer even meant, but I hit my allotted time and had to move on > this strategy should help you increases your chances just a little for curvebreakers.

Why E is actually correct:

• If E stands, then an increase in the number of species MORE LIKELY contains new endangered species, as PSC proponents are more likely to contest a species classification (and push for subgroups to be labeled as different species) if the subgroups within that current classification contain endangered populations.

• Key Note: Regarding the confusion about the contrapositive in E and how to interpret it, the first thing to mention is that E is NOT a deterministic (if >then) conditional, it is a probabilistic (more/less likely) conditional, meaning it does NOT have a contrapositive, but rather a INVERSE inference. You can "negate both sides" while retaining its logical value, which you can't do with If>Then.

  • Original: If no populations within a species is endangered >> then PSC supporters are less likely to contest classification.

  • Inverse: If some populations within a species is endangered >> then PSC supporters are more likely to contest classification

• Now recall (from the text): PSC supporters contesting a classification = trying to split an existing species into more species.

  • So, whenever endangered populations are involved, PSC proponents are more active—and their involvement increases the number of recognized species.

  • Therefore, if the PSC framework leads to more frequent reclassifications in cases where endangered populations are present, then increasing the number of species (through reclassification) naturally increases the number of species that include endangered populations—the very claim the author makes.

• Summarize the logical chain

  • PSC supporters push for more species (splitting existing ones).

  • They are more likely to do so when endangered populations are involved.

  • Therefore, an increase in the total number of recognized species (driven by PSC reclassifications) is likely to bring along an increase in endangered species. That directly strengthens the author’s final statement.

Strategic takeaway: This is a curvebreaker question (hardest on the whole PT) because it hides a soft conditional chain inside a probabilistic statement. You don’t need to unpack it perfectly on test day—instead, use POE to recognize that (E) is the only choice touching both sides of the causal link: increasing species, and endangered populations needing protection. Even if the connection feels opaque, it’s the only relevant strengthening option.