I wish people would just stop rationalizing bad LSAT question. If, as you have admitted, the government can't determine if that was sure, how could they have ensured it? It's just a horribly worded question. The problem is exactly that one of the conditions explicitly says that the government has to ensure it, if it's too complex to figure out, then the government could not ensure it, so therefore one of the conditions failed.

It's just a bad question.

This is a ridiculous question, especially since it asks for what is most logically. We can't talk about logic if no logical connection about "suffer" has been made.

The problem for me was that the "this" in "this is probably the explanation" was ambiguous. If by this, they mean coffee->meth, then C should be the right answer, because it's the coffee that explains the difference in risks.

The logical leap required to go from Cold War to the very idea of alliance entailing having a common enemy is ridiculous. An alliance is not necessarily formed out of having a common enemy. It could be formed because both country can benefit from the protection of each other, without a specific enemy in mind.

The issue is "expressing inner turmoil" is an extreme instance of including emotion - the kind of emotion that L includes in his paintings are supposed to be on the simpler size.

It's the difference between

"wow I am happy because I just nailed this logic game"

vs

"WTF is the point of all this? Why am I wasting my time trying to be lawyer? Am I making a huge mistake? Will I even like law school just after I just spent all these years in school? Why bother if global warming is gonna kill us all anyway?"

If anything this shows that it's a bad question. Even the video's defense for the right AC is nonsensical. For one I don't see what the supposed social problem is. Also just because the action in response to some problem was motivated by self-interest, it doesn't mean government's involvement was necessary. Criticism 2 does not really address whether the social control strategy was effective or not, just that it was badly motivated.

lmao i totally did. thanks for the headsup

large readership and best selling are not even close in terms of meaning smh

I agree. the video explanation simply hand-waved AC D, but it requires some insane assumption.

Yep, major prick move on that one

Answers B, C, and D are obviously wrong. This leaves A and E.

A is wrong because the contrast is incorrect. The whole article's point is that lawyers have to consider the their obligation between their client (defendant) and the society through the court. The author assumes that in this situation the obligation to the court is the same one as the one to the society, so there is no competition here, as suggested by answer A.