@businessgoose I ruled out E immediately after seeing undesireable ecological effects, which is not mentioned by the passage when discussing catching wild fish. I think we need to be really careful with assumptions, catching wild fish might not produce undesireable ecological effects ---- what if catching theses wild fish will actually be beneficial to the ocean ecology because these fish prey on too many sea monkeys who are beneficial for maintaining the ocean ecology.

I know that the claim is not offering direct support, but I was hesitant to conclude that this is offering support for an intermediate conclusion, since I couldn't find an intermediate conclusion in the argument. To me, the claim that the heacy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of the local businesses close is not really an intermediate conclusion, but felt more like a premise. I think my mistake was to think that intermediate conclusions are not premises. But I am still confused as to whether any support that is indirect would be a support through an intermediate conclusion. Any clarification on the relationship between direct support, indirect support, and intermediate conclusion(preferably with examples) would be apprecaited!

@RyanAlexander you'll be a great lawyer lol

Another principle that is assumed by the stimulus is that as long as there is a defedent who can't have their right to have their legal counsel present when being questions guaranteed, then the order requested by the plaintiff cannot be granted. (since there are three codefendants and only two shared the same lawyer)

and

when granting an order would violate a right, then the judge shall not grant that order

@1787850048qq372 lollll relatable! i thought it is name-dropping

@Stas1973 That also slowed me down during my take of this question, but it helped me a lot to realize that name-calling /= offesnsive ideas by imagining a panel discussion of a divisive moral issue. Say the panel is on the topic of whether abortion counts as killing and one member who thinks it counts as killing (potentially offensive idea to someone but still part of the debate) started name-calling another member who argues the opposite (bad look on him cause it's an ad hominem).

I wished that this lesson could add a bit more material on when a few ACs all are abstractions of the application but then some are weirdly worded and are an interesting framing of the application (whcih turned out to be right) and the others are using familiar wording from the application but is not the actual answer

OOHHHH its because if theres 38% of W taking night class and also 38% of P taking night class, the overall percentage would have to be also 38%, regardless of the raw amount, because we know if not W then must be P; W>0 P>0; and W+ P = overall.

Hence the balancing theory. I guess brains do get rusty if we don't use them... It's been five years since I last tackle any math equation :(((

@Rena12345 smart

Was hesitating between C and D because I think both are right, but in the context of the first paragraph, B is better and is the right function for the first paragraph. was kind paranoid of LSAC being so indirect and was afraid to choose an AC that seems so easy and obvious.

I understnad that 1000 people might be enough as a sample size to be representative of the newspaper's readers, and how this has nothing to do with the argument. But what bothers me is that the conclusion lands on that the book has influence on a great number of this newspaper's readers. How would you know if 1000 constitutes a GREAT NUMBER of the ENTIRE reader base if you don't know how many readers the paper have? Like what if there are a billion people reading the paper, then 1000 responses are definetely not a great number of the readers... Help please

Didn't choose D because I was afriad that D would just be restating the stimulus. However, the stimulus is presenting the CR relationship. So D is not restating the CR, but triggering the CR to guarantee the nec4essary condition.

@Super_Cookie It would be helpful to understand why A is right by looking at the logical gap of the argument.

In the stimulus, we can reach to the conclusion that less wide and equal political power is more likely to receive public funding for large scale gov projects that benefit some more than others from the first two premises.

however, the stimulus concludes with something regarding the welfare of a society (which is a completely new concept that was never touched on before). So sth is missing here (this is the logical gap). Ok... let me try to understand why the author makes that conclusion. Since gov by ref is a less wide and equal political power form, it is more likley to recieve public fuding for large gov projects. If large scale government projects sometimes enhance the welfare of society, then having higher chances to receive fundings for the project would enhance the welfare of society, this means that it's good to have the less equally and widely distributed political power. Now the logic chain is linked and the argument makes sense.

To verify the answer, if we negate A, say the large scale government projects do not enhance the welfare of society, then the form of political power is not even relevant to the welfare of a society soley according to the stimulus premises. So the argument would fail completely, confirming that A is the right answer.

@AbigailvanEerden A and E are different because you can still have a decent population of C people seeking for jobs, but just not so urgently.

It was hard to wrap my head around how actions that create a positive effect on social conditions could count as a political action, but I guess I do see how when compared to the gap in D (american literature & seperation), this gap is more bearable.

@ppertierra851 That's where I looked at during my take, but it led me to eliminate this answer. I convinced myself out of your train of thought because I think it's possible that the scientists didn't know about a certain type of element but still knows that pitchblende contains radioactive elements besides uranium. It makes more sense to locate the support for the answer to the hypothesis sentence.

@TobiStein I also had the same question in mind. However, after review, I think its important to read C in a way that focuses on the function of C (what this sentence does). C is essentially strengthening the last paragraph's main point: fair verdict ---> each juror's opinions be heard.

If this is a LR strengthening question, it is easy to spot that C is the best answer, because it is providing us with an anology that helps us to understand this conditional reasoning.

However, appearing in RC made it seems wrong, especially given that LSAC decided to make this AC a strengthen by analogy one, which is not the strongest method to support/strengthen a point. But still, it does its job compared to the other ACs that don't even touch on the main point of the last paragrah.

My only deterrent from choising D during the take was the word "examination". I thought that it was too narrow to indentify what the passage was doing as an examination; to me, it felt more like a presentation of two different risk-taking psychological theories without author's attitude.

I think however, it is quite general to conclude that the author attitude is absent in the passage. Though the author didn't mention why the new studies are more convincing, he obviously keeps pushing the theory, indicating that it was a preferred opinion hence examination?

It would be helpful if anyone can help with my understanding of what consitutes as "examination."

@shadimeraji61 the passage also talked about the previous psychological theory of risk taking in paragraph 2

D presents an alternative way to explain the correlation. 

Hard to say if the author actually makes the assumption in A or not.

@JoelKeenan *sigh*

@ksh9665264 I also located to the same spot, bur during review, i realized that the passage is commenting on alternative material while answer choice C is secretly switching the idea to "alternative source of energy". Alternative material for manufacturing could be sth like switching plastic to paper, but alternative source of enegry means switching from fossil fuels to solar power: they are completely different...

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?