In reading the ACs closer, can't we eliminate A simply on the grounds that it talks about individual counseling and the impact on quitting smoking whereas the clinical trial in the stimulus only makes reference to individual counseling and the impact on cravings? I mean, for all we know the individual counseling could have done A TON to help lessen cravings but did jack for helping people quit smoking like AC A claims.
Even despite logical indicator "when" in the first sentence? Under the domain of repressors: EMPS → HR up
(B) may weaken Foster's argument, but it doesn't strengthen Fisch's. You cannot strengthen one argument by weakening another.
In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?
This question is a testament to how much language matters on the LSAT. Even if you don't fully understand the logical implications here, you can eliminate two most attractive wrong answer choices on the basis of language (focusing on inclusion of laws and legal permissibility rather than punishments).