This suggests some people might save energy for other reasons. But this doesn’t mean that cost can’t also be a motivating factor for those people. The individual meter can still incentivize them to save on energy. And, the author never assumed every tenant will conserve energy.

I'm confused at this answer description - they literally say in this AC that cost is NOT a factor.

The stimulus doesn't commit to a definition of engagement. Engagement is engagement. So for D - engaging w/ the art piece longer is material, whether from viewing it in person or on your phone. This question is insane

None of the discussions here were clarifying this for me. What worked for me in looking this over was "at least". I was missing that in the stimulus completely and was having no idea how it made sense until I saw that.

The "all animals" trap is one I recognized live when attempting to answer the question; however, the last sentence in the stimulus defeats that trap; and indicates (albeit erroneous; but they do indeed do it) all animals.

I understood perfectly what this passage was doing and the utility of each paragraph. I hate this because I feel I could explain to someone why E is correct.

Honestly, they shold not have all-capps'ed (sp?) the "NOT" here. I completely misread this.

This question is off to me. I chose C b/c both "C" and the sentence in the question posed are something that students read that demonstrate the dullness of what they are reading. I feel logical connections are made in these types of questions; and I just choose the one that the test writers didn't think of. :/

@cmduell23393 I got this one right; but I was hesitant due to your point exactly. Optimism isn't just jovial or positive; it's more hard-pressed to affirm a point.

Issue I had "live" during test and still don't understand.

E says "...only to the extent" HOWEVER - the question literally says "little of social significance" in contemporary novels - which we know - per later on in the question - it has an "only purpose to make readers wonder what will happen next."

The author verfies the existence of social significance in contemporary novels (yes it's little but so what?). E essentially says that the first sentence in the question does not exist.

I honestly don't see how either of them disagree that the existing law is being violated. At best, the respondent here says the act could be like loitering or harassment. That is not trespassing in of itself.

B was super enticing. Here's the problem for me in the moment during the test: The stimulus says "of the sort" - meaning those very exact tools did not have to be there.

I don't see how AC A strengthens.

A only suggests that there could have been an ice age earlier. It doesn't lend support to the SEQUENCE of ice age.

D strengthens in my opinion. D helps demonstrate causal existence; and verifies that cosmic rock can indeed lead to large amounts of dust being raised from earth's surface.

The difficulty with these types of questions "which would be most helpful..." is that this - moreso than others - I feel is more open to subjectivity. For example, I think the question posed in A is helpful in confirming. I think B is helpful too. It was my first choice, but A I felt more addresses and investigates the sub-concern of portion-type that the stimulus was dealing with. Also - the last sentence of the stimulus is not a repeat of what A is asking (fyi).

So are we just supposed to ignore the LSAT when they put, "if true", because if A was true, it would explain it.

@long.john " There are in fact correct answer choices on the LSAT that have done this very thing."

Exactly! B seemed to not violate any LSAT assumptions. The question explanation easily could have been like - "the question says, "if true...".

This is insane. I don't know what's going on here. A is a good answer. D is the strongest, as it beats it more.

For AC D: In other words, if it literally is just the PRESENCE of the chemical that causes the consequences described in the stimulus, that literally weakens the argument. Adjusting the doses won't do a darn thing if it's not really the amount but the presence of it that causes an inhibition. 2 trillion gallons or 0.1 ml, same thing. The whole darn argument was that oh, let's adjust the does, that will do it!! :) :).

Not so fast in D - for it's the mere presence, not the amount.

I understood the question; I chose A b/c the stimulus read as if the author was MERELY DISAGREEING WHY the union's strength was declining, as they immediately critique the evidence. They gave me no real suggestion that they don't disagree with the ultimate point - that the union is declining. I see no evidence whatsoever to support this. In fact, they even say what strong unions do in the penultimate sentence. I only see evidence that the author is disagreeing with the metrics of union strength calculation, not disagreeing that union strength is declining. There is no support for this.

I'm confused why not b: the question stim says "should not be taken too seriously." I was going between a and b for a while; but specifically landed on a because of that "should not be taken too seriously". Shouldn't that indicate that the movie starts are just saying that insincerely?

Easy one that I would get wrong normally; thought about phenomenon and what the apparent issue was - what was the question needing to be reconciled

@jpalange701 Absolutely.

@jacobchisholm818 I agree. The wording presents the stimulus with a valid reading of it as a dichotomy of theory types. I feel the LSAT should have closed that that ambiguity. 

This question was as hard as a 180 average curve question for me and I may know why. I was treating the stem as not showing evidence that there weren't other ways for employment to decrease. Why are we allowed to make an assumption that there are NOT other ways. The stem never says there are not other ways.

Because of this, there was like no answer that was working for m

Here is my serious problem with this. One longer paragraph and one shorter.

I was going to choose "C"; but I see the question as author B NOT actually disagreeing with AC C. The issue is that C says "IN EVOLUTIONARY TERMS" - the author of B actually - and explicitly mind you - isn't disagreeing with the definition of "evolutionary terms". In fact, they recognize that is the definition, and they actually WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH THE ASSUMPTION made IF ADOPTING that definition IN "EVOLUTIONARY TERMS". In other words, we may not like a theory that promotes a certain thing, but that doesn't mean we don't think that there is an incorrect assumption made when applying that theory. We just disagree with using that theory. Logic can be correct and still be disagreed with. C puts us between a rock and hard place in applying evolutionary terms.

I saw B as something Author B would actually disagree with in the assumption. In other words, they have no qualms in recognizing that in "evolutionary terms" C would explain things a certain way and agree that those assumptions would occur if that theory was applied - which is what C says is applied. They just disagree that THAT is the correct theory to use to explain behavior to begin with, which is why B seems better, as it doesn't trap us with applying evolutionary theory.

@brandonps206872 I completely agree and don't know why anyone else has mentioned this. I would have chosen C much, much, much faster if the order was correct here, b/c it would have made me realize the inverse relationship admittedly but also simply be a correct understanding of what "first" means. Employment is mentioned second, so shouldn't the AC be, "although the evidence given is consistent with the SECOND thing's having caused the FIRST."

@joejoseph Also - I chose A in that it shows that in LSAT land - other reasons do exist for a city to possibly experience decrease in crime other than police officer roster increasing (which - again - E only claims a policy of such was passed, not that it actually came into fruition).