Does anybody have an idea as to what answer choice B means? lol

Awesome. Thanks for your response :)

I initially chose (A) but changed my answer during BR because I felt like (A), although addresses the premise the best, isn't so air tight that it leads to the conclusion that the manager, too, is to blame.

In order to make (A) more tight, I think it should have said something along the line of, "If a manager does not take foreseeable problems into account when making decisions, he/she is to blame when a problem rises from that decision."

I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong, but is (A) still the right answer because this is a principle question so the argument does not need to reach the level of validity?

Hi, odebs2797. Although I agree with you that Q does not give examples, I also do agree with JY's explanation of why (C) is not the correct answer.

(C) says, "giving examples to show that the uselessness of all regulations cannot validly be inferred from the uselessness of one particular set of regulations."

An example of a stimulus for which (C) would be the right answer would be if P, by showing that the new safety regulations are useless (one particular set of regulations), concludes that ALL safety regulations are useless and Q responds to P by giving examples of other regulations that are, in fact, useful (and by doing so argues against P's claim that ALL safety regulations are useless).

Please keep in mind that P and Q are talking about THE SAME regulations: the new safety regulations. No one is making the argument that all regulations are useless. P specifically says, "complying with the new safety regulations is useless." Therefore, answer choice (C), which is something along the line of Q telling P, "hey, you cannot infer that all regulations are useless" simply does not make sense because P never says anything like that in the first place.

I hope this is helpful!

A great playlist. Thanks!

@7sagestudentservices I'm also studying for the LSAT in Korea! Good to know that a fellow LSATer is around :)

Thanks so much for organizing all this :D

Hi Purple Paris!

In my opinion, even if answer choice (E) read, "Some of the films released in 1992 in country Z were based on novels that were published in 1991," it still would not be the correct answer. We already know from the stimulus that 25 films released in 1992 were based on novels published in 1991.

Moreover, there still is a gap between the premises and the conclusion: there still exists the possibility that some of the remaining 75 films were based on books other than novels. Therefore, we need a premise that says something like, the only books published in 1991 that films released in 1992 were based off of were novels, which is precisely answer choice (B).

Your explanations have been super helpful! Thanks so much. Keep up the good work :D

You can distinguish the two by figuring out which way support is flowing: whether it is flowing from the stimulus to the answer choices (MSS) or flowing from the answer choice to the stimulus (strengthen).

Let me try to explain by using examples:

Question 4 says, "The economist's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?" The economist's statements is the stimulus, and the question stem is asking you to take what's given in the stimulus as true and find out which answer choice is most strongly supported by it. In other words, you are finding an answer that receives support from the stimulus. So in this case, support is flowing down, making this a MSS question.

On the other hand, question 23 says, "Which one of the following, if true, lends the most support to the psychologist's conclusion?" The phrase, "which one of the following, if true," refers to the answer choices. In this question stem, you are being asked to find an answer choice, if true, will support the conclusion in the stimulus. Thus, support flows up from the right answer choice to the stimulus, making this a strengthen question.

Hope this helps!

I am also interested! Thanks for organizing :)

A pencil war LOL thanks JY for keeping my LSAT study entertaining

@loissahn951 this is a great explanation! Really helped clear things up for me. I have a question regarding answer choice (E), if you don't mind helping me out.

Answer choice (E) says, "Radical environmentalists advocate positions without regard for factual support or economic feasibility," and JY, in his video explanation for this question, said that this is a reiteration of the first sentence in the stimulus ("The positions advanced by radical environmentalists often contain hypotheses that are false and proposals that are economically infeasible."). I personally thought that answer choice (E) is unsupported by the stimulus because we just know that radical environmentalists' positions often contain false hypotheses and proposals that are economically infeasible, but I didn't think that was good enough for us to accept (E) as true (that they advocate positions with no regard for factual support or economic feasibility). What do you think?

Sorry for this verbose question. Really interested in knowing what you think!