I still think B is very hard to choose despite the explanation: since the conclusion is that one should take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value, I don't see how the differing practice would affect the conclusion. Wouldn't it matter anyway, since the conclusion is that the origin (didn't say if it's different or not) is relevant in assessing the value? In other words, you can still take into account a discipline's blemished origins even if the practice is different now vs before...

I think the flaw in the argument is that there is just no argument explaining what causes a discipline's value to increase or decrease and how that relates to blemished origins. Didn't like any of the ACs, but I thought D is the one that touches on it.

CONFUSED

F-ed by my political philosophy background, Cannot stop thinking about the social contract theory by Hobbes when reading the social agreement part, and I assumed that this is referring to the same thing, so I chose E.

The takeaway is to read LSAT articles pretending that I know absolutely nothing.

@MaxThompson so would C be right if there is no B?

I understand the ACs and why the whole second part of the stimulus doesn't matter for this question, but I just want clarification on if it's the case that if we were to ask how the principle applies to this election between L, M, and N, we won't know anything about Kay's final decision because the principle doesn't apply here?

@LowriThomas

I accounted for the part of the life cycle statement, but still think that when there are no parasites on the stingrays, it could be a coincidence that all of these parasites are on shrimps or oysters at the same time...

I agree with the student's latter explanation. A is somehow flawed, but it is the best answer.

When reading the stimulus, I noticed that the argument is applying the results yielded from data collected from the policyholders to the general public. So when I got to D, I immidietaly assumed that it is an assumption to reconcile that gap.

If D were to do that, it would be something like: The trend collected from policyholders' life expectancies and weight is representative of the general public.

D seems like it is rewriting the above, but it is annoyingly playing with my logic and added another layer of required assumption that policyholders not having longer life expectancies would mean that they are representative of the general public! That is too much to assume, making the AC not a necessary assumption for the stimulus.

@angienelms2001788 If B were to be correct, the government probably would have replied back with something like the government pointed out that the evidence was only damaged and not destroyed. (something that needs to demonstrate the charge was an "exaggeration") The mere fact of how the attroneys don't have any things to prove their claim is not the same as saying that they are exaggerating.

I like to imagine how I would revise the stimulus to fit each option to evaluate if the option is correct or not.

Thought A was a contrapositive, but actually the stimulus is not saying "if autonomous, then maximally realistic." It is saying "if autonomous, then more realistic," which translates into "if maximally realistic, then it has to be autonomous."

omg for the entirety of my life, I thought "invaluable" meant "not valuable".

got this wrong because LSAC is an ethnocentric little prick, assuming that all things made for religious purpose is more likely to be aesthetic than everyday chores tools. And I was too confident to finish reading all the answer choices after seeing how C is offering an alternative explanation

@dbasalone i also caught this assumption and find it kinda disturbing... C could also be offering an alternative explanation for the usage of the flints...

The stimulus argument is so hard to understand, with the way that it was written: Dioxin is present in the river where fish live, even after the shutdown. If dioxin is the cause, the fish's concentration of hormones would have been abnormal even long after the shutdown. However, fish recovered to normal hormone concentrations quickly after the shutdown despite having dioxin in the river, proving that the dioxin didn't cause the concentration alteration in fish.

Given that, the author is assuming that dioxin is always present in the environment where fish live (downstream paper mills) when making his argument.

I was confused about the relationship between the two premises given by the author during my first take, let alone the assumption that he is making, which made none of the ACs appear right to me.

Moving forward, I will remember one of the ways to disprove causation between A and B in an argument is to show how with A, B doesn't happen.

I was hesitant because I think it is an assumption for one to make to assume that their present condition cannot be seen as they appeared = cleaning them will allow people to see their original conditions.

For these RC except questions, I find the MSS and infer question LR methods very helpful and applicable. Before looking at the ACs, I will find whatever is absolutely WRONG / NOT SUPPORTED by the group in the question stem and then hunt for that answer.

Alternative explanations:

• if AC confirms possibility of the alternative, then the argument is weakened

• If the AC eliminates the possibility of the alternative then the argument is strengthened.

I mistakenly identified plants that are guaranteed to be disease-free as plants that are disease-free. Companies can guarantee that their food is disease-free, but still have their food carrying diseases, just like how I can promise to work hard today, but still end up scrolling reels.

Eliminated till the last choice and got super confused why this question has to do with guarantees.

It's possible but is not logically followed by the stimulus.

I chose C. However, Lurano doesn't say anything about research money being wasted. In order to make an assumption about her opinion on the research money, one needs to make two assumptions:

1. that lurano thinks money is not that important compared to the safety of the researchers

2. If money is less prioritized as an issue, then it is not wasted.

E, on the other hand, only makes the first assumption, so it is more likely to be supported as a point of disagreement.

Crazy to see how the CR just naturally translates to lawgic in my brain at this point.

@LiviaLSAT The indicator works, but it is important to be aware of the grammar and what it is modifying. In this sentence, "necessary" modifies fundamental knowledge.

I don't understand why B is correct, specifically how we can know that the purpose of a theory is to acquire knowledge.

Good argument, except that I would point out that this argument depends on the assumption that all Genie+ past pass is downloaded via the Disney App. If negated, Walt could have had the paper pass in some other way that does not require one to offer the propitations nor prostrate before the altar.

@brandonsimon2018983 I had the same issue! I later understood that I didn't realize that students finding computer useful for studying arithmetic, while not so helpful for other subjects is a more detailed description of the mixed reaction itself. I understood the last sentence as a background information that is supposed to be combined with one of the answer choices to create an unmentioned mixed reaction (i expected mixed reactions to be something more subjective than "useful", like: some students like computer learning but not others)

The opposite of arriving more than five minutes late is arriving just five minutes or less than five minutes late.

@jakekane the contrapositive works! If the pool does not open before noon, then there must be no children under the age of 6 in the neighborhood, because everyone in the neighborhood is permitted to swim at the pool.