after thinking about this I think C is the correct ac because we are trying to support the conclusion that kids develop strong aversions to some foods, specifically some of the foods that don't cause their sickness but were the most distinct. Thus, having acute tests strengthens the bridge toward the conclusion, that children develop strong aversions to distinct but not necessarily sickness-causing foods.

Would love to know if anyone had a different interpretation of this!

Kevin you are the goat 🐐

@Chlob Hang in there man the lsat is a marathon, not a sprint. Just keep going over the basics and practicing!

This is quite a difficult one and I made the most sense of this afterwards through the process of elimination:

a -> comparing modern and old gas-fired power plants is not the comparison the author is making.

b-> this fact is applied to both and doesn't imply why we should pick a over b.

d-> okay? irrelevant.

e-> who cares?

thus, C makes the most sense (which is obv helped by the other weaker ac's).

c-> if the waste-to-energy plant replaces an existing trash incinerator that pollutes more, this premise does the most to account for the environmentalists' claim that they'd choose the waste-to-energy plant.

@yunzhu-1-1-1-1 From what I understand I don't think it is classified as an intermediary conclusion because the premises tell us 'comfort -> fatigue' and 'visibility -> awareness,' but nothing in the argument provides support for the claim that driving position affects comfort and visibility. Thus, the statement "driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" is better served as a premise that directly offering support to the conclusion, that the position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety.