I think C is wrong for the same reason as of B.

Notion: supported-> success

Absurd restatement: success->supported.

They do not match.

I think the reason behind is that this is among the core course where a thematic approach is used. This topic is essentially on main conclusion, and to demonstrate we are on the right track, of course the question type has to be analyzed first before even trying the question.

I believe it is. It might be just too trivial to mention, I presume.

For 5.1 and 5.2, both premises are merely correlations/observations. Both premises serve to support the conclusion of the causal relationship(s) between the two factors involved in each, respectively.

My personal thought is, were the indicators absent, the premises and conclusion could indeed flip, as a causal relationship indeed gives support to a correlation. However, "Consequently" in 5.1 and "It seems" in 5.2 indicate that what follows these two indicators is what the authors are seeking to support.

ALWAYS READ THE QUESTION and figure out WHAT IS BEING ASKED.

Got this wrong again on second try and clearly I did not learn my lesson.

For eliminating B, now I have a alternative reason, which might be better.

There is no "outweighing" by the environmentalists. They never compared. The specific words used are "fail to consider". In no way could one equate these two.

The question is asking for a principle, so a generalization is suited. You need to think that for the principle to apply in this very situation, the "people" point to the environmentalists.

Even if you aim for a 180, you have to use a good time strategy. That means skip hard questions and only go back to finish them once you have gone through the whole section. Struggling with a single hard question not only wastes time on this particular one, but also leaves you burdens of pressure since later questions are allocated with time. You will panic when you see the timer digit drops down sec by sec, and you thus perform ill.

It is one thing to know the strategy, and one thing to apply the skill. I myself had the same problem (as a non-native speaker). Just let it go. You will improve eventually.

It is also a good practice to give each question only 1 min until you reach the last 10 question. The last 10 questions will be left with around 15 mins, or even more. Just the same as AlexgLSAT suggested.

Yes he sometimes does that "ah so easy no explanation even needed" thing. Kinda annoying.

I got it wrong as well. But on second thought, D is clearly the wrong answer. The first sentence of the last paragraph is the opening and core idea to be expanded. It claims her to be innovative. This is the first hint. The second sentence additionally hints you from two spots: "decades of" and "difficult to set aside". Combining all these, the author is saying that old schools are not innovative.

I could even guess why D is put there. At least I chose D for neglecting the context but interpreted on the basis of the word's literal meaning.

The word "proposes" appear at the very end of line 21. And the paragraphs to follow, 3rd and 4th, are essentially how her innovative styles were applied in her writing the book.

Another quick elimination for A that I figured after being tricked by it: it addresses the tendency to quit smoking, while the columnist's concern is with tendency to smoke.

The explanation for B is totally illuminating. Always remember which side you are adhere to.