I got this wrong and chose A originally. Since I am trying to WAJ more, this is my analysis.

AC A is wrong because we are focusing on the court's interpretation, not the language of the law

AC B starts off correctly, but there is no evidence that the court was "not authorized" to rule on their property rights. In fact, they did make a ruling, just not one that the author favored

AC C misconstrues and takes a point that was given in paragraph 2, when the 1984 case is discussed in paragraph 3

AC D is unsupported. Just because the court ruled in a conservative manner, we can't assume that there was some sort of "political preasure"

AC E is correct because it focuses on the court application (interpretation), which the author feels is wrong

Tbh, I think this is one where under time pressure, PoE is extremely helpful, since B-D are not great. AC E (I feel), is hard to find, because it seemingly starts off positive in regards to the court.

My main conclusion is that George and Boris are both insufferable and having an annoying conversation

What kind of question is "Why was X not popular during this small time period, but is now?"

The world changes dawg. Not everything has existed/been in pop culture since the genesis of the world as we know it.

To me, that's simply what Boris' response was;

"Dude, it just became popular after that, starting with Y, now more people do it"

Bad response, to be fair, but without diving into a complex sociology-focused lesson, wtf else do you want him to say?

I think it would be easier to convince me that AC E is not actually english than to explain to me wtf it means

So glad to see so many other people read this as MBT. I feel like explicit MBF questions are so rare you just assume it's MBT. Would be nice if it was capitalized like EXCEPT questions are, but I guess part of the test is attention to detail.

I really thought AC C was a classic trap, because of the wording. In my mind, it was baiting us to assume higher accident RATE = more DANGER. I thought the thing we were supposed to realize is that you can have a higher accident rate without it necessarily being dangerous.

For instance, if my friend Tod has gotten into 14 accidents in his life that were all him accidentally bumping a parked car while trying to leave a parking lot, his insurance rate will probably be a scary number, and technically they are accidents, but they likely wouldn't qualify as a dangerous ones.

Maybe we are supposed to understand that in the context of regulations, we are talking about rate and danger level interchangeably, but I'm still not fully convinced by this.

@Xexne198 exactly what I did. I literally thought after doing this question on BR explaining exactly why I was so confident, and getting into the numbers similar to how you did. I feel like it's insane that we have to read it as hunters (whole, as a group) and not hunters (in general, individual). It's crazy because this feels like the exact type of general language that could appear in a law and completely leave it open to loopholes, yet the LSAT writers seemed not to care.

Glad this was an experimental section, I hope they threw this question in a large heaping dumpster fire!

I do understand why D might be a better AC, but I'm still not clear on people dismissing "free to experiment" in AC C. I feel like the implication is that a particular literary conglomerate that is mentioned in the passage basically holds a monopoly on art is not far-fetched, leading to the implication that it would be a major advantage to not be under said control. Otherwise, why would it be in the passage? If this establishment lets people create what they want without bias, why mention it at all in the stimulus? To me, it seems like if we cannot infer that this establishment is some sort of creative roadblock, it was simply put there to feed a trap answer choice.

That being said, I do see now how AC D is implied. If you take a look at the word choices and swap some in for synonyms, it does seem to be implied that "metropolitan" or "urban" themes would have a greater chance of success in Mexico. Then again, I think it's a stretch to make an argument about quantity and project it onto potential success. Sure, "the work of Mexican writers is often longer in form and marked by greater cosmopolitanism and interest in theoretical ideas and arguments than is Mexican American writing", but does that mean that because it is MORE OFTEN that they have a greater chance of success? Like I believe another comment pointed out, this feels like just as much of an assumption as AC C.

@noellegreaux il me fait sourire a voir du francais ici for real

@AudreyGilmour This helped, I appreciate you explaining that.

Can someone help me understand why E is wrong? I like C and E as answer choice, but I don't understand why E is wrong. I understand we are dealing with an embedded conditional in the conclusion that states that we are in a world with no Iatrogenic dieases, but answer E is essentially saying in my eyes "as long as there is non-Iatrogenic dieseases, there is bound to be Iatrogenic dieases, therefore to get rid of Iatrogenic diesease, you would have to get rid of all diesease", which is not something we are dealing with. I understand that in a round-about way, answer E is essentially just denying hypothetical in the conclusion, and now that I see that C is right I concede it's the better answer, but still don't see how E is nessecarily wrong.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

@RossAdkins Thank you. The last couple sentences of your explanation helped me understand a bit better, I appreciate it.

Dude this question is infuriating. Feels like this was the first one I was actually confident on for NA questions, especially since is felt like negating AC B made the argument fall apart.

AC C makes sense, but what does it have to do with electrical bills? How are we just supposed to know they want the answer to be about "overall cost," including the purchase of the generators?

I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.

So is it ok that in this instance the answer doesn't really address the conclusion that the author makes? The author is talking about "discouraging from entering the profession", and it seems like THAT is what we are trying to target with the answer. But the correct answer in this case (E), talks about discouraging them from CONTINUING to teach AFTER they are already in the profession. In this case, they weren't discouraged from entering the profession, but rather later on. I still feel like B attacks this more cleanly by saying something like "it's not the case that people with this personality type are discouraged, but rather that's the personality % breakdown of people interested in the field to begin with". Again, I concede that E is a good answer choice, just still confusing

I'm still not fully understanding how the wording of E weakens the argument. As someone else pointed out, I feel like it's a very reasonable assumption to say that even if the diseases were the EXACT SAME from back then to modern day, the epidemics would be much shorter now due to sanitation, medicine, and all that good stuff. Maybe I'm misinterpreting how viruses work, but again, I feel that's a highly reasonable assumption of why they COULD be the same, just under different conditions, which would mean that it doesn't weaken the argument. I sort of understand how B could also be consistent with and not necessarily weaken the argument, but don't understand why E weakens it.