I got stuck because we don’t actually know anything about the two other books just one of them.

My reason for rejecting e was that we could have increase tuition and it still be too low

Im struggling here because no matter how many times i read it B and E just feel like they say the same thing. We know from the stimulus that non eof the candidates work there so its safe to assume that all candidates that dont work there is just all of the candidates. how do i stop these logical reaches

the stimulus mentions the advantage to the homeowner. so the opinion of the perceived advantaes of the home owner are most likely more significant than knowing the profits.

I apologize if my explanation was not sufficient if you still believe otherwise you can write LSAC your argument and they will get back to you with a detailed response.

We can only assume what is given in the stimulus aand infer accordingly:

"their population must reach at least 250 if it is to be self-sustaining"

"Their current habitat is not large enough to support any more of these animals, however"

Therefore it must be true that

Unless Florida panthers acquire a larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining.

Precluding other problems is a strategy used when selecting an answer choice, not to dispute the premises given in the stimulus. hope this helps.

heres how i understood it. When looking at a questions stems answer choices, if an answer choice shows an alternate cause to the hypothesis (i.e. the dolhpins didnt die because of the mining operation but rather because of starvation) that would would weaken the hypothesis. so if the question stem is asking you to weaken the argument youve got your answer, but if its asking you to strengthen it, then you know which option to rule out.