Could someone explain why its incorrect to read the Conclusion as a G2 indicator using required. I initially got House ->/Home for the conclusion.

AC C is wrong because 1,000 is a valid sample size even if the newspaper's audience is much larger.

For AC E not being right - You do not have to have necessarily read the book for it to be influential (it could have been read to you, you could have just understood the main ideas).

AC B is correct as this would prove very insightful. The 1984 book coming in second could be a split of 500 bible, 499 1984, and 1 for another book. Or it could be 999 bible, and 1 for 1984.

If it's the latter case, then 1984 really is not too influential, and the statistic is misleading. That's why the insights from AC B would be most helpful.

AC A is incorrect as the stimulus does not ignore the counter evidence but uses it to support the conclusion. It addresses the few good articles by indicating that they were plagiarized.

AC C is correct since it uses the conclusion as a premise (first sentence is C, and then used again after "since").

TLDR- You can definitely do both! You'll just have to be very intentional with your time. What's more important? Going all out to maximize your score this cycle, or possibly needing to take more time to study to have this meaningful work experience?

Full time working and LSAT studying is very doable. I work full time and do 1hr of studying M-F and then a PT Sat and BR Sunday, which easily gets me to 10hrs a week.

Realistically, how many more hours a week would you be studying if you did not have a job? It could seem like a lot- Being truthful with myself, I know it would not be much higher, but thats just me.

I was able to get my 148 diagnostic to a 172 PT by studying 11hrs a week (average) over the course of 6 months. Funny enough, I also started a new job at the beginning of those 6 months too. It was stressful to try and learn both things at once, but I'm glad I did it.

On my real LSAT I got a 166 - I'm still studying though, because I want to break 170 on the real test!

Good luck on your LSAT journey!

The argument concludes that since the studies used two different methods, that we do not need to question why they obtained different results.

However, in real experiments, multiple different methods can be used to obtain one objectively true result.

Ex - Heating ice by fire and heating ice by sunlight use different methods, but both should have the same end result of melting.

This is why AC D is descriptively accurate/correct.