@Lauretamrizi i think this one would be fails --> caught, bc i mapped it out as IF a spy fails, it was BECAUSE they were caught. i placed it that way because they said a spy fails by being caught, not if a spy is caught they fail. us knowing they failed is enough to know they were caught. its kind of a rlly confusing one to me though.

so i originally put C for this answer and got it wrong, but then changed to E for blind review which were the two i was between, and got it correct.

originally for C, i thought that "ancestry" was the indicator of it being an earlier influence on the french language. however, when i went back, i realized that this answer choice says "share its linguistic ancestry" which means that you would study other languages that are MODERN like spanish and italian, etc. but that all STEM from one language. so this isn't telling you you must study the language it STEMS from, which you could reasonably infer came first, or else it would be the answer choice.

when i decided on E, i reasonably inferred that the mentor (Plato) would be influential. a mentor also assumes a chronological order of mentor (first) --> mentee (second). if this answer choice didn't say it was his mentor, and just said you must be acquainted with the philosophy of Plato, i think it would've been wrong because even if you are familiar with these philosophers and their relationship, you're not allowed to assume outside knowledge about history. so even if the answer choice had all the same info as it currently does but changed "Plato" to "Beyonce," it would still be correct because we cannot bring in outside knowledge. we can't say, hey Beyonce was born after Aristotle, how could she be his mentor? because we aren't allowed to make that assumption. we have to assume the information itself is true.

i honestly cant understand this and i wasnt able to diagram it. all the diagrams im seeing in the comments are confusing me more. can someone explain what the flaw is in the stimulus and how it parallels e? also other than saying that ac a makes sense as an argument, could you show me how the diagramming doesn't parallel?

this confused me because the beginning of the stimulus mentions comparing chess-playing programs to each other, meaning multiple programs.

i feel like this was confusing. the reason i didn't choose C and actually eliminated it on my first pass was because i thought it weakened the argument. if the virus is inserted randomly, isn't it just likely to be a coincidence that they were inserted in the same spot in both species?

i didn't understand that we are supposed to assume that once its inserted they are passed down in every single generation of the species, even through a divergence, and so then it's not coincidental that these two species have it in the same spot.

would this not be extra information that we are supposed to assume? i thought we aren't supposed to do that for lsat questions.

this is my explanation for why the answer is B instead of C, i got it wrong on first try but got it right in blind review.

edgar states that protecting a species of small fish is inconsequential. rafaela, however does not disagree with this statement. instead she says "you're missing the point" meaning that its not about whether the fish's survival is inconsequential. it means he is misinterpreting the point of shutting off the water supply.

in rafaela's response, she doesn't say that the threat to the species threatens our water supply. she states that the threat to the species is "A SIGN" of a threat to our water supply. meaning that shutting it down is not about the fish, its about our water supply itself. she never says if the fish are threatened, that affects our water supply. she says, if the fish are threatened, it shows us that there's another separate threat to US, which is our water supply.

that means that B is the answer because then the threat to the water supply, in addition to the threat to the fish, is a reason for shutting down the pumps. therefore the fish are not the ONLY reason for shutting them down.

i hope that makes sense, someone please tell me if you disagree with my reasoning or if it is confusing!

hi im located in la so wouldn't be able to meet in person but would do virtual!