If you have trouble getting over the 'significantly' in answer choice C, what helped me is understanding that the LSAT writers use the word 'significantly' differently, at least in this case. I understand significantly to mean 'strongly', but in this situation they are using significantly to mean that it was significant enough to make a difference.

I got this right on first take but changed my answer in blind review to D after reading 'probably', but as others have mentioned, because the premises are not absolute, and the conclusion rests on an argument, its ok to use probably.

Yup.. this is what I found most confusing about this stimulus. From watching the video, I think you have to look at it that while the L cans no longer exist since they were melted into aluminum, you have to use the # of cans that once were in L as reference.

I had no clue what the words in answer choice D meant but I was able to get it right by eliminating all the other answer choices. If I don't know what an AC or some words in the AC mean, that's my general strategy for trying to answer the question. Hopefully that helps anyone else who didn't know what D was saying.

I was also confused by this question, thank you for the explanation :)

Thank you. The context of new purchases mentioned in the stimulus was something I totally glanced over. I thought that debt was a form of spending but if you use the limitation presented by the stimulus that spending refers to new purchases, then debt would not fall into that category.

I initially picked A but changed it to D in blind review. The reason D attracted me was because I made the assumption that if a deal was made with environmentalists, that they would heavily restrict the use of natural resources, which would result in significantly less improvement. But we just don't know if that compromise would have heavily restricted the use of natural resources, which is what the conclusion in the stimulus is.

Most of the people who ate on that restaurant on that day did not come into contact with the bacteria, but that doesn't mean that the several people who got sick did not come into contact with the bacteria. E picks up on this. I misunderstood Most as referring only to the sick people, not to everyone who ate at the restaurant on that day.

That confused me as well, thank you for the answer!

Same here. I think it's the word 'now' that the writer of this question added in that plants that assumption into our minds.

I agree that it probably has a lot to do with underestimating the easier questions! I think as well because the answer choices in easier questions are phrased a lot simpler, you go through the answer choices a lot quicker, which might result in picking a wrong answer over the correct one, which has definitely happened to me.

Answer choice B does not tell us whether Krall works for Arvue or not. Thats the problem with it. Because of that, we cannot apply the principle given in the stimulus to the application since the principle strictly refers to applicants who do not currently work for Arvue. So while B tells us that of all the applicants who do not currenly work for Arvue, Delacruz is the most productive, we have no way of knowing if Krall is one of those applicants who does not currently work for Arvue. The correct answer clarifies Krall's status and thats why its correct.

Very happy with the curriculum so far and a big part of that is the great explanations in the video and emphasis on fundamentals.

Ah, your response helped me the most. I found it extremely puzzling but the 'unaffected' word is so key here and I missed out on that. I was puzzled too but its not an unreasonable assumption to make that if shopliftings decrease than profits naturally must increase since you have less losses/expenses from shoplifting. But the answer choice clearly states unaffected, which would suggest that they are unchanged to what they were before. Thank you for the insight!

Downtown traffic congestion decreasing is a necessary condition for profits increasing, not a sufficient condition. And answer B does address that, because it tells us that the first claim of the conditional chain (cost of living decreasing) is true. This activates the entire conditional chain and we can conclude that everything else is true because once we know the first sufficiency condition in a chain is true, all else follows.

This answer really left me stumped when I was doing it but I believe the key lies in the following sentence: "Reporters should never interpret the news. Once they deem a story to be newsworthy, they are...". Ramon is essentially stating that he believes that in this world, reporters should never interpret the news, but right after, he states that it is ok for reporters to deem what story is newsworthy and what is not. Therefore, we can implicitly conclude that Ramon believes that deciding which story should be aired/reported on does not fall under the definition of interpreting the news, as that would not align with his world belief that reporters should never interpret the news.

This therefore clearly leads to answer E.

Does anyone have advice for identifying when ideas should be separated in the necessary clause?

For example in the first question, I was able to pretty quickly identify the sufficient and necessary clauses, but did not separate relocated panda and /prosper. I put /relocatedpandaprosper

I believe the indicator for question 4 is 'any'. So 'any' internally plausible scientific theory is sufficient for plausibility/is plausible.