@Jdunni thanks, I need to practice that thought pattern because I frequently have trouble with these questions. Ill have to think about the bridge more

@Jdunni That's what I thought too! I had a lot of trouble deciding between D and B and ended up going with B because I was on that thought track. I don't know how to rule that out but I'm thinking I should have gone with D anyway because it connects the last sentence of the stimulus so it seems a bit more relevant.

@willdhorn I'd second this, I didn't think to listen to Mike's explanation because in the past I haven't noticed the different explanations being useful in different ways but this time it totally helped. Mike brought up some interesting ideas about the specific vocabulary used in the question and pointed out the weaknesses of the wrong answer choices in ways that I found more comprehensive than in JY's explanation.

@MichaelWright I had watched JY's explanation but not yours. Thanks! That actually cleared it up a lot, especially for differentiating between A and C while looking for the least bad choice. I hadn't thought of the vocabulary points you brought up either. Still a gnarly question but I understand how to tackle it much better now.

I originally chose C then second guessed myself and picked A because I thought C actually gave evidence that Caligula was a tyrant. If there are records of him doing the same things that other verified tyrants have done, that seems like it would qualify him as a tyrant. I guess I don't understand how we're supposed to make the assumption that the records are lies instead of the assumption that they're true since there isn't really evidence in either direction. Anyone have an explanation that would make this make sense?

I guess this is one of those questions where they want you to pick the "least bad" option but dang, its tough to hinge the least bad option on an assumption that kind of feels like someone is making up a conspiracy theory.

What helps me the most is prioritizing rest. No matter how much you want to be committed to studying, remember that it actually is very productive to take at least one day each week to be completely out of LSAT thinking so you can reset and have some time to chill. I also find that, on my very busy work days, studying in 1 hour or 45 minute chunks of time is the most helpful for me. The only time I study for longer than that at once is when I'm doing a full practice test. Lastly, if your test is a month away, remember that things are about to get easier, whether you reach your goal score or not. You can do this!

this is insane! good luck on the actual test! Any tips for us mortals who are trying to break the 170 ish plateau?

@Jsonf Thank you, this actually makes way more sense than the main explanation. All the explanations seem to be based on the use of the word "greatly" but I think you're right, basing it around "increases" makes this a better weakener.

I completely understand how C is supposed to be the right choice but that doesn't stop it from being kind of stupid.

The stimulus explicitly says that the pesticides are used on agricultural products that are imported into the US. So, for C to be correct, this question is absolutely asking us to assume something that we have no reason to assume ( that the columnist left this weak point in their writing).

If you were actually arguing with someone and you contributed the fact that the pesticides that were manufactured in the US are used on ag products that are then imported to the US and somebody countered you by saying that other places also manufacture the pesticide, they would absolutely not win that argument.

To be clear, I think we probably should have all picked C by recognizing that its trying to present an alternative explanation and using process of elimination, but I still think this question is kind of a dud. I guess I've gotta remember that this test is dictated by someone else's rules.

@RyanCalvert This got me too. After watching the explanation video and thinking on it for a while I think this is what's going on.

You're looking for the answer choice that will strengthen the reasoning in the argument. The argument says that well intentioned attempts to resolve problems are usually unjustified BECAUSE the attempts are usually ineffectual and foster resentment.

To strengthen the reasoning in this argument we want to find a principle that will justify the argument. E does that because it gives us a parameter to evaluate whether a well intended action is justified or not. According to the principle in E, the actions mentioned in the argument (well intentioned but ineffectual) are not justified.

I made the mistake of thinking the argument would give the parameters to evaluate the answer choice. But this question is asking for the opposite relationship, the answer choice has to justify the argument. Maybe that's where your understanding broke down too.

how are we supposed to know if this is how the "and" works in other questions? I guess I'm following the explanation but it seems very contradictory to how we've learned to read questions in the past. Is the difference between "and" and "or" really just a general practice that doesn't apply in some cases? How should we learn to recognize this in the future?

@FrancisZaklukiewicz Yes, it's a very popular approach for all question types. I find it helpful because I know what to look for in the stimulus before reading it, relevant facts and parts of the stimulus stand out if you know what to look for ahead of time. That way you're less likely to have to read the stimulus a second time.

Of course, some people prefer reading the stimulus first so try a couple of drills with each approach and see what you like better.

I've had o watch the video several times to understand the explanation for choice A but here's what I think a lot of us are missing and why we're confused. We're supposed to account for the correlation between higher amounts of dietary iron and development of parkinsons, not account for the relationship between genetics and parkinsons.

An alternate explanation to "High dietary iron causes parkinsons" is "People who have a parkinsons predisposition happen to eat more iron", the iron could be correlated to parkinsons only because it's piggybacking off of the genetic predisposition.

Answer choice A eliminates that explanation because it tells us that people who are more likely to develop parkinsons DON'T eat extra iron. The iron/parkinsons correlation is independent of the genetics/parkinsons correlation.

Therefore, we can eliminate the alternate explanation of them being connected. This strengthens the journalists reasoning because there are fewer possible explanations for the phenomenon available now, so the journalist's hypothesis is a bit more likely overall.

That's the best way I can think to articulate it, I hope it helps someone.