I've seen quite a few LSAT questions at this point and I can honestly say that this one was very poorly written. I have never read a question that did not have a definitive right answer until today. Given the stimulus we must assume that for C to be right that all difficult to guess passwords are written down. The stimulations clearly states that they are GENERALLY written down and therefore it is quite the leap to say it must be true that easy to remember passwords are less of a threat. Perhaps I'm missing something here but I have seen plenty of questions where this type of logic was used to rule out an answer. A seems like the most reasonable choice here although it does ask us to make a leap as well. All I can say is, I am pretty disappointed at the sloppy writing of this question.

Can someone explain why B is clearly wrong? The ranking is based off the ease of paying taxes and complying with regulation. The country simplified its tax filing so I would say its perfectly justifiable to assume simplifying → easier. And B is essentially asking whether this change has lead to compliance of the tax law. If there has been less compliance then ranking goes down and more compliance the ranking goes up.

#help (Added by Admin)

So I didn't pick C for #4 only because the passage states that the initial court hearing was "to no avail". Ultimately the church was able to get its voice heard only after a second hearing. I guess at the end of the day it was an effective tactic for getting what they wanted but it wasn't necessarily THAT effective because it originally failed.

In addition to the assumption around "encouragement"in C I would also add that C assumes decreased stress = less injuries. So let's say those that did listen to the encouragement where able to reduce stress on their low backs we would need to know 1. if the reduction was enough to reduce stress and 2. that the reduction of stress leads to less injuries. For example, let's say they wore back braces and it reduced stress but the injuries were caused by consistent use of the lower back instead. So yeah we could say the encouragement was implemented and the stress was reduced somewhat but the stress wasn't the issue.

I'm having trouble seeing how negating C completely destroys the argument since it would still be possible that the deaths needed to lower the survival rate for fish from traditional hatcheries come from the fact that they don't explore new environments as much.

So one way to look at it is to ignore the other two some statements (Brilliant --> Some Prof, Brilliant --> Some Vote). The conditional circled above negates what is necessary for Prof --> 18+ and Vote --> 18+

So if we think about it that way we would have to admit that some of the people who are brilliant are not Professors and Cant legally vote since some of the people that are brilliant are younger than 18 and if you are younger than 18 you can't be a professor or legally vote.

Hope that helps!