E is also wrong because the stimulus points out in the comparative claim that if a dog is not for recently domesticated wolves than is is more similar to MOST other breeds of dog, not just a single breed as the answer choice highlights!

Yikes! I mistranslated A's negation! negated A says, All of the mercury introduced into the body CANNOT be eliminated, thus it means some will be leftover and we can still test for it!

C can also be seen as incorrect because it is talking about preventing the loss of authority in general, when the example on is referring to a specific instance where authority can be lost.

E can also be thought of as incorrect as it destroys the argument presented, which is imploring the student to break his promise to his friend.

P: A series of great works is the only indicator of greatness.

C: The greatness of an artist cannot be used to provide basis for any predictions of quality on unknown or future works.

Flaw: Such a history CAN provide a basis for what the quality of future works may be, as these works are of the same artist (an not say another artist) so therefore they are a reflection of the artists skills and such. Also, note: When it says unknown, that can mean pieces that have already been made (under the same circumstances the other works were made, which are considered great), so why would they not be great too?

Also, to greatness does not just mean that they have a great collection, perhaps greatness also means the artist is wealthy.

note to self: confusing something established for causing said even is basically taking the premise to prove the same premise as a conclusion. So C kinda just say: the premise is confused for the conclusion?

ugh! i got this incorrect by forgetting to always hark back to the conclusion!

totally misread the question! didn't realize I was supposed to be comparing the principle with another factor !! #fail LOL embarrassing

I am interested !!! !!

The way I see answer choice B is wrong is the following: What the conclusion in the stimulus is saying is that economists have overestimated the influence financial incentives when it comes to selecting a job because high salary is not the most important factor according to the survey. Essentially, to weaken this the task becomes to strengthen the idea that financial rewards are significant in the process of selecting a job, which means you are comparing the influence of financial rewards to OTHER factors. This is exactly why answer choice B is INCORRECT because the incentive of salary is not being compared against ANY other possible influential factors (as the answer choice literally says "otherwise identical," so all that we can gain from this answer choice is that in THIS world where the only difference between jobs is salary THEN it is an influential factor (but that is ONLY in this example, and it does not advance the economists claim as it does not strengthen the influence of financial rewards on job selection when compared to OTHER factors.) C showcases that while salary may not showcase the influence of financial conditions on job selection, many jobs offer different financial rewards which suggests that financial rewards CAN be a significant influence on job selection (which no other answer does!).....!

I found the best way to think of this idea is this:

a percentage cannot be used to indicate an AMOUNT if the subject the percentages are attached to do not provide an AMOUNT. The LSAT writers are hoping that test takers make the false assumption that the VALUE in one period remains the same in the second period being compared to it.

In other words, this problem is trying to trip you up by exploiting the fact that meny people will assume the overall amount of funding for disease X has remained the same from 10 years ago and today. IF this was TRUE, then you would be able to use the fact that the percentages for spending on ST decreased as proper reasoning for why the actual AMOUNT spent had decreased. However, because we do NOT know this, the percentages cannot be used when attempting to determine the actual AMOUNT (of money in this case spent)

For example,

Say 10 years ago $10 was spent on disease X in total, and 50% went to standard treatment while 50% went to non-standard treatment. That would mean $5 for each type.

If we are ONLY told that these percentages changed, and given NO information about the overall AMOUNT allocated/spent on disease X (in other words, the context) then we cannot use these percentages to make any judgements on the current day difference in spending.

Why?

Because for all we know the TOTAL amount of spending allocated to disease X could have increased to $100 million now, and thus even though the PERCENTAGE of spending for standard treatment may have decreased to, lets say, 20%, the actual VALUE allocated (that is money in this problem) could still be greater than it was 10 years prior (which was the 5$)!

This is why when we see the conclusion state that less money was spent on the standard treatment, we can only say that the overall spending AMOUNT for disease X as a whole must of decreased, because we have no idea about that changes in the $ allocation as we are not given the actual AMOUNT allocations.

Also be careful with option D, as the it says MOST of the spending during the last decade went to non-standard treatments, implying that a decade ago most of it was NOT going toward non-standard treatments. For all we know the starting percentages could have been 5% for standard, and 95% for non-standard!

If I am wrong about any of this, or you have a question please let me know!!!

I will get over 175 on my September 2022 LSAT!