Another recent RC question where I feel like there's something I'm just not getting about RC. (D) seems well-supported to me: if forced to liquidate, a bankrupt company will only pay its lenders, and through a fire sale/liquidation. With the reorganization system, the business restructures, in a way that should allow them to pay off more than just their lenders, but other stakeholders as well.

With (E), "finance the establishment of a new business," I get that it's vaguely supported by the notion that lenders may charge more if reorganization is the system rather than liquidation, but this seems like a needle-in-a-haystack inference and I'm still not seeing what makes it any better than (D).

Taking the LSAT on Tuesday and I swear RC will be the death of me. I'll get -0 LG and -0 or -1 LR and then bomb -3 or -4 RC and have to retake. Unless you wise people can help, lol.

I feel like there are a lot more recent-test RC questions that have me scratching my head. I understand the LSAT writers are extremely skilled and make their questions bulletproof from challenges/ambiguity, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how (A) is better than (D), or how (A) is supported in any way.

The notion of the crop geneticists being "too willing to further intense efforts to maximize the land's agricultural output" just makes no sense to me in the context of the passage. All the author basically says is they've tended to focus their research and thinking on the North American varieties, and then notes that the North American methods seek to "maximize the land's output for economic reasons." If there were an article about how some scientists have tended to focus their research and thinking around GMOs, could it be reasonably inferred that the author of such a passage would agree that the researchers are "too willing to further GMOs"? It makes absolutely no sense to me. (D) on the other hand, makes a lot of sense to me because it seems natural and supportable, based on the lines around "crop geneticists," that the author would agree that the reason the geneticists have taken an interest in the heirloom crops is the fact that they can maximize yield.

I love the old RC tests because I could get -0 relatively easily: just stay focused, understand the structure, know where the key info is located, and find the pertinent lines that support the correct answer for each question. On recent RCs I'm consistently getting -2 to -3 and I feel like there's something I'm just not getting but I don't know what that is.

Help?

The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.

However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always learned that "most" answers are virtually never correct on necessary assumption questions, because negating a "most" statement just takes you from 51% (or more) to 50% (or less), so negating a "most" assumption does virtually nothing to the argument. I'm hoping someone can clarify the guidance on "most" statements on necessary assumption questions. Thanks in advance!

(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:

At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."

Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!

I ultimately chose (C) but was rather uncomfortable trying to eliminate (D). It seems to me they are conceptually similar:

(C) provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - Dr. Faris wasn't deceiving, he knew that improved sleep would likely result from the med.

(D) also provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - with other doctors prescribing this medication to patients who had trouble sleeping, Dr. Faris was less likely to be "deceiving" and more likely to be simply going along with the typical prescriptions he/she has observed from other doctors treating patients who had trouble sleeping.

I recognize (D) is more of a stretch, which is why I chose (C), but I'm rarely this uncomfortable on a LR question so early in a section, and would love any further insight on how to more confidently dispatch (D).

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

I get why (A) works but can someone please explain why (C) doesn’t? It seems to be extremely well-supported by P3: “Because the value of software lies in its form of expression, protection should be given only for particular applications - expressions of algorithms in an encoded form.”

HELP!!!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of the stimulus"