I interpreted A a little differently. I thought it weakened the argument bc it weakens the connection between premise and conclusion by showing that certain ecosystems reduce the negative effects of acid on their own. Therefore, If these ecosystems have less acid in their environments, it is not necessarily caused by the fact that less acidic pollutants are released into the air. I chose C because it seems to be talking about the future, whereas this argument is talking about the current decrease in acidic pollutants. Can you explain further?

When answer choice B states that "it is a premise offered in support of the conclusion" is the word, "conclusion" referring to "a conclusion" within the stimulus (in other words, a sub-conclusion) or THE main conclusion? If it is the former, then shouldn't they refer to it as a premise and not a conclusion? After all, the main conclusion isn't that "voters often reelect politicians they tend to resent" but that "people's political behavior frequently doesn't match their rhetoric."

Does the words "logical completion" always indicate that the question is a main conclusion question? Is this phrasing from older LSATs or is it also present in more recent ones?

How can we assume that McKinley means side effects when s/he states that the drug will produce various effects? What if the patients were taking a weight loss drug and they dramatically dropped pounds, which is a visible effect. I chose C because i thought McKinley was presuming that the drug would have a certain outcome, namely that the drug would have an effect while the placebo will have no effect. Engle points out this flaw when s/he states that McKinley is prematurely presuming the studies' outcome. A studies outcomes includes its side effects as well as its effectiveness.Can you clarify this point?

I have been taking a practice test almost every other day for a month, but I don't really see a significant improvement. With less than one month left, what do you suggest is the best way I can use my time? My weak points are LG and LR. Should I slow down on the PTs and practice a bunch of LG problems? Any advice would be really helpful.

Why is that the statement "A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter" is translated GW some /D and not GW-->D?

I had originally chosen answer choice A because the stimulus said that "NOW, more than ever" the interest is in money. I thought the first answer choice weakened this argument because it suggests that interest in making money isn't unique to our time, but has existed always. What am I doing wrong here? Can you further explain why this is an incorrect way of viewing things?

Can you explain further why we are allowed to accept the logical gap in Answer Choice C (politically progressives include feminists), but not in Answer Choice A (politically conservative doesn't mean performing politically conservative acts)?

Intuitively I think I understand why (CPF and /PPCA) is the opposite of (CPF-->PPCA), but lawgically I don't understand how this comes about. You said to look back at the negation of universals lesson, but when I look back, the negation of the universal should be /PPCA-->/CPF. What am I missing here? Are we foiling out the "/"?

I'm wondering the same thing. I found the older LSATs to be easier.

Could you explain further why MBT and MSS have been labeled as "non-argument" types? I thought they would fall under one of the first two categories. I just want to make sure I am understanding the nature of these question types before I move forward.

Is is possible to get this diagram in PDF format?

Does anyone want to blind review PT 49 with me (or any PT for that matter) sometime this week (preferably a weekday)?

I'm still confused why A isn't correct. Is it because the emphasis is off?

I think I am still having trouble distinguishing SA and NA. Is this question one of those that can function as both?

#22, isn't this a SA question stem? I am getting SA and MBT confused...

Can you explain further why D is the wrong answer? I think it fits into the discussion re: why causation implies correlation, but correlation does not imply causation, but I cannot quite articulate why.