they have got me so confused with answer choice A... I've never seen sufficient vs necessary "to make the argument inadequate". All I can come up with is if (TV lines not close and animals electrocuted) → argument invalid.

Can't figure out what this would be as the necessary condition though.

What if the A had the presented the "normal" sufficiency/necessity confusion? Isn't the columnist making this mistake in assessing the wildlife activists' argument? The wildlife activists are saying that the lines being close is sufficient to increase animal electrocutions. The columnist says that animal electrocutions happen when the wires aren't close, i.e., the wires being close is not a necessary condition for animals to be electrocuted.

Hope I figure this out before tomorrow!

Thank you for explaning answer choice E... I couldn't make heads or tails of it and was worried about not choosing it since I couldn't eliminate it on its own merit. Good to know that LSAC throws logically nonsensical (as opposed to only logically or factually incorrect) answer choices into the mix. Do nonsense answers appear most frequently as answer choice E?

I eliminated A for a simpler reason... the stimulus talks about epic poetry and the AC says just poetry in general. What is true of epic poetry need not be true of all poetry.

For answer choice A, wouldn't Dana disagree (it is wrong to use the same educational method with all children) and Pat agree (all kids need to work both on their own and in groups)?

JY - you said in the explanation that the correct answer choice was vague and abstract - typical of right answer choice language. I might have missed this point in the lessons, but are you saying that the correct answer to flaw questions is (in general) vague and abstract? Does this apply to any other question types?

For question 6, how is it that answer "C" is not supported by lines 38-43? The author cites a specific example of how value is assigned to a particular location by comparing relative incomes. Is it because the question asks about "environment" and not "location"?

How does the Trent's assertion that the extinction took place over many years affect the role of the small crater as the premise? I see what you've labelled as the premise as unnecessary to Trent's argument. The crux of his argument seems to be that extinction took many years, and a single asteroid couldn't be responsible for a prolonged dinosaur doomsday.

hey - if you haven't seen JY's syllabus lesson on watches, it's worth reviewing. Very easy (and cheap) method to keep track of timing on the sections.

I got hung up on the term "rate of recovery". Answering the question correctly relies upon interpreting this phrase as a temporal rather than a numerical measure. I was originally thinking of "recovery rate" in the sense of "crime rate", which is a number over time, rather than a speed.

I think answer choice D is appealling if you are thinking in terms of the number of people who recover when they are in the hospital for six days as opposed to four. Maybe University Hospital isn't good at their job and takes an extra two days to get the same number of people to recover compared to Edgewater. In that case, suggesting that University Hospital reduce the number of days does seem like it presumes the length of time is irrelevant to the recovery rate.

Could someone put this into lawgic for me? I get why the answer is correct, but I'm trying to diagram everything out and hitting a wall on this one.