Subscription pricing
I am struggling to understand how this answer is supported by the stimulus. To run through my thoughts:
A: irrelevant, there is nothing about clams in the passage
B: irrelevant, we are not discussing the mussels spreading to the Mississippi or the effects on the pear industry
C: we don't have any information about removing the mussels from the areas they clog
D: This is the one I picked though I went back and forth between D and E. I picked D because it seemed to be the most related to the stimulus. The stimulus talks about how the mussels clog the intake pipes at the beginning and then transitions to talking about how bags of mussels suspended in discharge streams help clean water. I assumed without proof that the algae would just clog intake pipes as well.
E: This one seems like a logical conclusion, but I didn't think there was enough direct support in the stimulus to justify this conclusion. It seems like quite a jump to me to assume that the mussels will need to be discarded as hazardous waste.
Any advice or help on making the assumptions that need to be made in MSS problems? #help
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question" Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question, this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules
The Disney argument is the strongest because it defines how to obtain the membership app. Defines that Walt has it and defines that Walt did not do one of the options. Given this the only option left is that in order to obtain the app he made the offering.
The tiger argument is the second strongest because it makes a claim and supports it with the fact that tiger, which most people know is a mamal, is not a suitable pet and this is somehting most people believe. However, this argument relies on a basis of information or belief that is not present in the argument.
The trash bin is the weakest argument because there are too many unknowns. We don't know if the cat licks his paw that way at other times, we don't know that he was the only one in the kitchen, we don't know that he likes salmon. It's a summarization of likely events with no concrete fact other than the trash bin is tipped over.
That's how I'm differentiating the argument strength.