Is "not support doesn't mean oppose" a valid reason to eliminate E?

Did anyone else kinda just assume flowers live forever and can therefore keep reproducing sterile hybrids indefinitely

Simplified version of the stimulus:

"If Joseph's book is published, he will get promoted. Therefore, if Joseph's book is as cool and good as he claims it to be, he will get promoted."

The argument is valid if we assume: "If Joseph's book is as cool as he claims it to be, it will get published"

Why does being "good" does not matter:

Our aim is to make the second sentence make sense by linking it to the first sentence. By assuming "cool" is sufficient, we are saying that being cool gets Joseph's book published, which then gets him promoted. Even if the book is not "good", it does not matter because being "cool" is enough.

We can also assume "being cool AND good" is sufficient, or that only being "good" is sufficient. However, this particular question only gives us one of three options.

(correct me if I'm wrong but) This only works because we are adding assumptions to the stimulus, not trying to derive things from the stimulus alone. If this was a "must be true" question, then the answer cannot exclude "cool" or "good".

How I eliminated D is that contributing to something is not the same as causing/being responsible for it. While air pollution could have made the fires unusually large and intense, this does not mean that the fires would not have been unusually large and intense without air pollution. Is this a good explanation? I think the thing about not being sure if the scientists know about the consequences of the El Nino is a better explanation for eliminating D.

This is how I justify B:

Answer B can only be true if you make an extra assumption like "the wider variety of wild plants includes plants that are exclusively eaten by the community" for reasons other comments have accurately pointed out. However, even if the stimulus does not guarantee the truth of B, that does not matter as long as there is some support because this is a "Most Strongly Supported" question, not a "Must Be True" question. Every other answer choice is not supported at all, making B the most strongly supported by virtue of being the only one that's supported.

Addendum: B is supported because 1. if cultivated, then they would be the only ppl farming 2. if wild, then there's the possibility (but not guarantee) that they are the only ppl eating certain types of plant

Lmk if this explanation is wrong.

Like many others, Q11 threw me off because of the use of the word "surprising". I eliminated answer C on the premise that "surprising" is not descriptively accurate.

At least for me, this is because artistic photography is often so associated with using nostalgic aesthetics that the content of the text is not that surprising to us. This seems like a case of letting our perspectives/prejudices/contexts make us interpret a text in a way that was not intended.

In that case, it might be helpful to:

1. Acknowledge that the text may be written for people who aren't us (for example, people who lived in a time when artistic photography was not widely associated with using old techniques).

2. From the content of the text, try to extrapolate how the intended audiences may/were intended to interpret the subject matter.

When we do these things, we can understand that the text could have been intended for people who found the development surprising. Upon understanding this, we can realize why it is wrong to treat the word "surprising" as an automatic disqualifier for answer C.

For 25, why is A wrong? Isn't risk a factor that determines the monetary value of a service? Is it because the % value does not accurately reflect the monetary value of risk, or is it something else?

I initially figured out that E was an S/N confusion but was so sure that A and B were wrong that I gaslit myself into thinking that it wasn't an S/N confusion

Passage B captures a thing that annoys me about a purely evolutionary approach to explaining animal behaviors. "Bees do X to pass on their genes" sure, they may have evolved that way, but what do the bees really feel?

I keep doing this thing where I misread the first answer (ie. "money should be acquired if its acquisition will make happiness unobtainable"), eliminate it, then force myself to choose between the remaining answers that are all wrong because I don't even consider the possibility of going back to the first option (here I was like wow C and D both suck but C seems less bad so I will roll with that). Anyone else?

Does anyone else feel an attraction towards B that comes from a harsh reading of the critics' perspective that assumes their roadmap argument was made in bad faith (ie. were they just looking for an excuse to criticize him and therefore wouldn't really care if he did provide a roadmap)? That's what initially drew me towards B and away from D, though I ultimately chose D as it is more accurate to the text itself in a direct, evidence-based way. I'm asking because I'm curious if the LSAT writers knew this was a bias they could take advantage of.

Does anyone else too hastily eliminate an answer that happens to be correct, yourself to choose between a bunch of bad answers? I eliminated A too quickly and ended up choosing C through a process of elimination even though I didn't like it because I put so much trust in my process of elimination that I didn't even consider the possibility that A could be right.

When I first started watching Legal Eagle as a teenager, I never imagined becoming a lawyer. Fast forward several years, and this man jumpscares me on an LSAT prep course.

B is wrong because it is too broad. The author is arguing that the Union leaders are unreliable because they have a selfish interest. This does not apply to all political motivations, which can also include selfless motivations.