Had to watch this video like three times to get it. Thanks JY

Thanks JY! The first session was great!

I'm in!

I was looking for leisure so bad 😩😩😩

Interesting how this question is so relevant to the times we're in now with COVID. Lol.

So let me try to articulate my understanding of this argument:

The Biologists stated that the abnormalities present in the fish immediately downstream is caused by the dioxin released by the paper mills.

Then our author argues that: No, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of the abnormalities since when the mills are shutdown, the fish recovers its hormones concentration while the dioxin decomposes slowly. So the author here assumes that the decomposing of the dioxin is close to the fish (and the fish is fine, so it must not be the dioxin).

Well, the correct answer choice C swoops in and says Woah, the decomposing of the dioxin is happening far downstream (which is not close to the fish immediately downstream), hence the fish's recovery. So, the premises may be true (fish recovering when the mill is shutdown, dioxin decomposing) but the presence of C makes it unlikely for the premises to support the author's conclusion. It is possible that dioxin when close to the fish causes it to have those abnormalities.

Whew what a question!

I guess the important thing to remember here is to always look for ways to attack the support structure of the argument (to find an answer choice that makes the premises not necessarily add up to lead to the conclusion).

BTW, I appreciate JY's explanation of this question, probably my best explanation from him asides from LG, lool he's godly with LG.

Initially chose B and then changed it to C. SMH

Thank you for sharing!

Add me please, thanks!

This is really a great example of argument analysis, again JY shows why he is amazing at the LSAT, we are so lucky to learn from him.

I think the issue here is that the premise does not support the sub-conclusion in the argument: If the profits were sufficient to motivate the very risky investments then we can conclude that it must be that the regulation is not tight, but AHHHH the conclusion states that the regulation burden has become excessive, again why?

If the industry was making enough profit, the author would not conclude that the regulatory burden is excessive.

Since the conclusion is that: THE BURDEN IS EXCESSIVE, THEN WE CAN SAY THAT:

1) WE DON'T HAVE PROFITS SUFFICIENT FOR RISKY INVESTMENTS and where is profit mentioned again AHH

2) THE PROFIT IS NOT THE HIGHEST.

So highest profit = sufficient for risky investments.

Whewwww!!! That took me a while to understand. Damn.

I experienced exactly the same thing lmao. I usually would sleep for an hour but then sometimes I ended up sleeping for over 2 hours. Green tea has helped me a lot. So i start studying early in the day and I drink green tea to keep myself awake and i take breaks every two hours for about 30 minutes to keep myself up!.

Damn what a great explanation from JY! Whew.

I definitely think D makes sense now since the 2nd criticism mentioned in the passage does imply the government's failure (hence the reason for the economic gap between both groups).

Also, it makes sense that A is wrong since the 1st criticism discussed in the passage did not mention or imply motives.

Urgh this is a tough question.