Hi! I'm taking the october Lsat while working a full time job, let me know!

im interested!

I also picked D because I thought the stimulus claimed that it was the specific patterns of the web reflected in the UV light that caused the flies to fly there rather than the UV light itself, which made me pick D. I think JY's understanding (and the correct understanding) is that it's the UV light itself that attracted the flies, which made E a better answer. Hope this helps!

I was debating between C and E, but I was tripped up because the stimulus said "overriding considerations," which sounded to me like the interests of our people are more important than retribution and gets priority in all cases. Answer choice E mentioned "balancing" the two considerations but I didn't feel like it was strong enough. And I didn't think C was too strong because the stimulus established that it was an "overriding" consideration.

If I try to rationalize C as the wrong answer, maybe it was too strong because this overriding consideration could've only applied to agricultural products? I would appreciate other people's rationale on choosing between C and E. Thanks!

interested!

In the diagram that JY drew, it shows that the assumption logic needs to connect not spending time to not developing, or developing to spending time. Answer choice A connects spending to developing, which isn't helpful for the argument. Hope this helps!

I am confused about answer choice B because if customers being satisfied with their first personal computer leads to brand loyalty, doesn't that incentivize brands to want to entice customers to try out their computer? Maybe this is too much of an assumption, but my rationale was that brands want customers to try and love their personal computers, which is why they put a low price for their computer in order to get sustained profit from this customer in the future with other products from the same brand, similar to answer choice D. #help

I picked E because of the sentence "once this was widely implemented, there was an alarming increase among infants in the incidence of scurvy." I thought this most strongly supports that theres a good amount (maybe MOST isn't the most accurate) of infants that drink cow's milk, because otherwise there wouldn't be that much of an increase in scurvy incidences if most babies drank breast milk. Is it wrong to infer that an "alarming increase" supports that "most babies" are affected?

I had the same question and that's why I chose A; also, if they're looking for a statement that "calls into question"Bordwell's position, why does that equate weakening argument? I thought the "position" could also mean Bordwell's conclusion...

this was my thought process as well...

For answer A, couldn't that wreck the argument by providing another origin for hairless dogs? Instead of the dog being transported from WM to CP, it could've came from this other place that had hairless dogs...

Also, I thought E was already in the argument (not additional assumption) when it stated that it was difficult to travel by land centuries ago, which is why they traveled by boat?