Glad I could help @aaronkeegan92975 !

I feel like this question allowed me to just use POE, specifically by eliminating the "nonsense" AC's (those of which include info from out of left field). Any thoughts?

@aaronkeegan92975 I didn't have any legal experience before the job I have now.

Would "usually good" translate to a "some" statement?

Is it a bad idea to practice RC using these early tests? How different is the RC from these tests from the RC of the modern LSAT?

So if we introduce the premise stated in (A), we wouldn't need as many cows to get the milk and meat we need, which would decrease the methane production from cows? I just don't see how we can assume this.

Also, I picked (C) because it was the only AC that contained Conditional Reasoning.

Did JY equate "Consider evidence impartially" to "Consider conflicting evidence"?

Is (B) wrong because even though scientists' research may yield harmful applications, they could have considered the consequences while doing the research? Is it too extreme?

I'm with you on this one.

So (D) is the correct AC because it links the conclusion that "health education" is usually propaganda to the definition of propaganda?

Along with 7Sage, I worked with a private tutor and something he taught me really rang true to me. If you say to yourself, "X can go here OR there", that is a good sign that you should split the game board. The emphasis is on the word "OR". This "OR" can be explicitly stated in a rule or can come from an inference you may make by combining rules. Hope this helps!

I saw (E) as a paraphrase of the statement that "Most experts rank Cezanne as an early modernist."

Is answer choice (A) too strong?

Couldn't the method still be ineffective if someone dreams about sleep (in reference to E negated)?

How would we expect that the number of fatalities would go down after a year consisting of a high number of fatalities?

Does AC B) provide evidence that the rash could not have been caused by other devices?

Is this an analogous argument and assumption?

Argument: Mike Trout is a good baseball player. Last year, he hit as many home runs as Bryce Harper.

Necessary Assumption: Bryce Harper is a great baseball player.

NA Negated: Bryce Harper is NOT a great baseball player.

Gotcha. Thanks!

I don't have a background in econ, but wouldn't production costs increase the retail cost of the product?

So is the author saying that scientific issues have no political implications and thus do not have the equal time obligation?

Thanks for the explanation (especially the second analogous argument)!

Thanks!