I don't get how (a) can strengthen the argument. It says "several species of shellfish and seabirds in the North Sea waters.." but how can being in the North Sea help the conclusion? Isn't it also possible that those shellfish and seabirds died because of the distemper virus, not the pollution?

I've been plateauing in the low 160s - mid 160s for almost 6months. I went through all the popular prep books and have started re-reading them recently to check if I missed any fundamentals. To be honest, I think I am weak in all three sections. Usually, when I drill (timed mode), I don't get as many questions wrong as I do in PTs. For example, when I recycle my old PTs, including those I don't even remember the questions, I usually get 0-2 wrong in games, 3-5 wrong in LR, and 4-6 wrong in the RC. For the PTs I do remember, I tend to score better.

Whenever I try new PTs, the problem is that my score always returns to the low 160s. I missed so many questions that I think I could have gotten right. Recently, I get around 160-164 as scaled score while my blind review score is around low 170s. I feel extremely pressured when solving new PTs, but I don't know why this is constantly happening. Is it just because I didn't practice enough? I get disappointed in myself every day and feel totally lost. What should I do to break out of this endless plateau?

I still don't understand why "the only" in answer choice B is valid. My original prephrase was "vote for L or N -> unacceptable." B says: unacceptable -> vote for L and N. It seems that B is the exact reversal of my prephrase.

I see why it is unacceptable to vote for L or N, but how does this fact make the answer choice B correct?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-23/

Can anyone explain why B is the correct answer?

I crossed it out because on the surface, it seemed irrelevant to people's moral beliefs. B elaborates on the moral content of broadsides in detail, but how can this be an alternative explanation for people's subscription to broadsides? Instead of B, I chose E, which says well educated people who read broadsides hated broadside peddlers. I thought E showed that people don't necessarily read broadsides guided by their moral beliefs.

However, now I see why E is wrong. The "well-educated people" in E doesn't represent the "most people" in the conclusion. Also, those well educated people hate the "peddlers" who distribute the broadsides, not the broadside itself.

I picked E because I thought it eliminated an alternative explanation by showing that the population drop was not because the beetles were eaten by their predator. I immediately crossed over A thinking it was totally out of scope. My thought process was: the stimulus talks about the number of beetles "spotted" in 1985 and 1989, so why would their camouflage matter anyway? Is E wrong because it can't explain the "difference" in the number of beetles in those two years? Can anyone explain how A connects to the stimulus?

Reading the stimulus, I thought there was the following logical gap in Anita's claim:

having a quandary about newsworthiness(the premise) and the guidance being inadequate(the conclusion).

So I picked (D) since I thought it meant the contrapositive of my pre-phrase. However, is (D) wrong because of "ethical dilemmas" since the stimulus refers to quandary specifically related to newsworthiness?

Also, is (E) wrong because of making a "professional decision"?

Then, why is (A) the correct answer?

I identified the premise and conclusion as the following:

P1: Spy is identified as the only clergyman working at the French embassy

P2: Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy long before he started work at the embassy

Concl: Bruno must have been the spy

I narrowed down to A and C and eventually picked C, which was the wrong answer.

I thought C was correct since his lack of French skills meant that he lacked the skillset that the spy had. On the other hand, I eliminated A because "not being dressed or functioned as a member of the clergy" is insufficient to prove Bruno wasn't a clergyman at all. He might have been an inactive member but could still have retained his clergyman title. I still don't see why C is wrong and A is correct. Can anyone walk me through the correct reasoning?