A hack for anyone who may be working on these type of ID the conclusion questions (I used to overthink these questions so hard and always miss them, but now I am excited when they come up).

1. The conclusion literally quoted from the passage: "But this would be a mistake." The second clause of the last sentence is just a premise to support the conclusion (explains why this is a mistake).

2. Then, I looked backwards for what "this" is. The immediately preceding statement says (right before the "But") that "[social scientists] assume they ought to perform the same reduction"

3. Whats the reduction? The assumption is the "this," but it needs to be fleshed out. The first sentence has the answer: "Reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions"

4. Then, I plug and play before reading ACs:

   1. "But this would be a mistake."

   2. This = assumption that they ought to perform same reduction

   3. Reduction = reducing phenomena to math

   4. So, if I reword the conclusion on my own, I get:

      "Social scientists assuming that they can perform the same reduction as natural scientists, which is reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions, is a mistake."

5. After making my own paraphrase, D is a quick selection. The author thinks it is a mistake, so it is a simple leap to "should not." Though should not sounds stronger than mistake, since the author said "it is a mistake" not "it may be a mistake," I felt comfortable with D.

#help

There are a few things I did not like about AC A.

1. Sure, monarchs required vast amounts of capital to expand their empires, but the consequence of absence of limitations on power was higher interest rates. The passage never says that creditors did not give them money.

2. If the monarchs didn't pay them back already, then why would interest matter? In my head, I could come up with some reasons, but the passage never says this. Sure, it says "creditors will not voluntarily lend generous amounts at favorable terms to. . . monarch who can renege debts", but who says it has to be voluntary? The monarch has all the power. Who says if the terms matter? If the monarchy needs money so badly, and doesn't care to pay it back anyway, where in the passage does it suggest it was difficult for monarchs to finance the expansion. . . the passage only says creditors were wary of giving them good interest rates, not entering into an agreement to finance them a chunk of money?

3. How am I meant to make the big assumption that the practical challenge of sovereign omnipotence is the inability to finance/obtain money? Couldn't the practical challenge be the high interest?

4. Using my own thinking, I can see how maybe these higher interest rates were accompanied by a reluctance to obtain borrowed money, but the passage never says that.

I see now how E is wrong. The 17th and 18th century threw me off at first since this is what I read as a consequence for England (they ultimately were forced to give up power and demonstrate respect to property rights when Parliament came into picture in 1688. . . meaning it would be a consequence that lasted for 17th and 18th century, the consequence being giving up power to Parliment), but the question says "French" also, and we don't get info on the French. I can understand that. (I don't really understand the 7sage explanation for this AC being wrong though. . . demonstrating willingness to respect property rights in the passage is associated with sacrificing power, which seems like a consequence to me, if we use the timeline for England).

Still, I do not think AC A makes sense. Really hoping for an explanation, please!

This questions was tough for me! Wanted to share how I got to A in case it helps anyone else.

First, one thing that I have done is make a quizlet with common AC terms/phrases and look up the definitions that the LSAT assigns to these words/phrases (did this after being frequently confused by "takes for granted"). The definition I've studied for address is: to deal with, respond to, take into account, or direct attention toward a specific concept, flaw, or argument.

I took this definition in my mind + POE to get to A.

AC A: Focusing on the "or" part of the definition I've memorized, the author only somewhat directs attention to the argument. The politician does not deal with it, respond to it, or take it into account. The politician dismisses this argument, deciding that something else should be focused on instead. Not my favorite answer, but not wrong.

AC B: Never attacks character of opponents. Does attack character of self-aggrandizing politicians, but the politician never says that their opponents are such politicians. Wrong.

AC C: Never assumes there is one cause. "Main cause" states there is more than one cause. Wrong.

AC D: Never says the views are extreme. Says the views are unwarranted, because the main cause is something else. But, the politician never says that the opponents say that the social spending is the main cause. Wrong.

AC E: This just doesn't matter. Wrong.

AC A pissed me off, but ultimately, it is the only one that is potentially right. :)

@arieatsoranges I went back and forth between A and E also before settling on E.

The silly analogy I use for myself with questions like this is the "rectangle/square" relationship. All horror stories are stories (rectangle), but not all stories are horror stories (square).

Using my stupid analogy here: the stimulus tells us that square beasts are violations of nature. The stimulus does not assert that rectangular beasts are violations of nature. So, we can't assume from the stimulus that all rectangular beasts are violations of nature. We only know that some of them are (the square rectangles).

However, AC E says that some rectangular symbolism describes violations of laws of nature. We know that all squares are rectangles even though all rectangles are not squares. The stim asserts that square symbolism describes violations of nature.

So, since all squares are rectangles, it is true that some rectangular symbolism describes violations of nature, since some rectangles are squares.

This silly analogy helps me a lot with these types of questions that I used to miss all the time. Hopefully someone else can find it useful! :)

I initially selected C before moving to B. I think C could potentially help account for greater cost if further fleshed out (most fashionable --> more expensive). But, more importantly, B states that the demand for "sofas" increases more quickly than supply. This means nothing to help account for modular furniture being more expensive. Therefore, even though C would be a weak help, B doesn't help at all, which made it the better answer to me.

This took me a really long time before I settled on B! I think it is a pretty crappy answer, but "prefers" did eventually lead me to "desire to please." It's less that Drew may be pleased by violets over roses, and it is more that if someone who knows Drew well is motivated by the desire to please, that they would, of course, send Drew's preference.

It doesn't matter if Drew would still be pleased by the roses. It matters the motivation of the sender ("Desire to please"). If they knew Drew well, knew Drew's preference, and desired to please Drew, then they would send Drew's preferred flower.

If they knew Drew well, knew Drew's preference, and wanted to send Drew flowers for any weird reason (say, they're a creepy ex trying to freak Drew out, or something bizarre), then they would not be motivated by the desire to please, and may opt out of sending Drew's preferred flower.

@lovejeb I know it's been a minute since this comment was made, but just adding this for anyone in the comments who may have thought the same thing. I got caught on "in preference" too while I was working this question out until I focused on the wording of the last sentence of the passage help resolve my concern.

Nonetheless, even these benefits may in the end be lost because niche markets have started to develop for several species of wild-caught fish, causing their catch rates to remain high even as the production of viable farmed substitutes has increased.

I don't believe that the use of "preference" is assumed, especially because AC D says "of a certain species". Markets have started developing for several wild species regardless of the increase of viable farmed substitutes, which means that those markets have a preference for the specific wild caught species. If there was no preference, why not pick the viable farmed substitute?

I don't think that making this leap requires an assumption of a preference existing; rather, I think this sentence is more of a definition of what a preference is/example of how preferential behavior is displayed.

Since more objective attributes like price, quality, etc. are left out of this statement, the markets' choice to pick certain wild over viable farmed options must be a subjective selection (i.e. a preference, since preferences depend on personal tastes and likings).

I don't know if this would be useful for anyone (never left a comment before), but maybe it could be! 😊