So Necessary Assumptions are pretty much the bare minimum the argument needs in order to be somewhat valid?

I am a person. Therefore, I am the cleanest person in the world.

NA: I sometimes shower.

I hate to use this example, but would this be correct? If I say "I never shower", the argument falls apart.

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?

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

Glad I could help @ !

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 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?

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

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 will the big farms become more competitive? Wouldn't these farms stand to gain more from government approval than small farms because, for these farms, the approval costs less? I got the answer right, but I would like some more clarification.

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

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.

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

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?

Would it be right to say that if you have to say to yourself, "I don't know, it could be true", that answer is WRONG in a must be false question?

Right now, I'm working as a legal assistant at a Criminal Defense firm. The pay isn't great but the experiences are extremely valuable. As a result of getting this job, my network has expanded tremendously. As far as responsibilities go, I file documents in court, help clients schedule office visits, and draft documents. Hope this helps!

JY's tangents are eerily similar to the ones my 7th Grade math teacher used to go on...

"Steven had seven cats. By the way, I fed my cat the other day. Have I told you about him?"