A. is wrong because the author did not make an alternative explanation as to why "price gouging is efficient", the either is trying to go against that claim.

By POE, one could possibly get to E, if one does not get tricked by C.....(I got tricked by C LOL).

I guess when you reach the last 20 questions in the section, the answer will not be that easy.

I got a little thrown off by the conditional statement made by JY. I thought stimulus was:

Computer Program with "Human Genome" → AI

But JY wrote down:

AI → Computer Program with "Human Genome"

I thought when something is "necessary" or "required" would put the variable in the Necessary Condition.

This question really played with my real world bias. In the real world if you are late to an important meeting and everyone else was there on time, there is no excuse for being late. That is why I picked B.

Anyways, it makes more sense as to why C is correct in the LSAT world. I wish I knew what "parking pattern" meant in this context.

I guess D is wrong because it is expected and it does not evaluate the increased cause of Parkinson's.

Man, E was my prephase. I read the stimulus and immediately thought of an answer like E before even reading E. I was thinking the Babblers were trying to warn and save the other animals preyed upon by predators (opposite of JY's explanation).

And it is wrong. I am still in shock LOL.

I guess I was supposed to look for an answer that benefits the babblers...and B benefits them the most.

This question is a great example of negating conditionals

I picked D under timed pressure. Now I realize that it is not as strong as B.

Man I don't know. I read A and thought, "Okay, they made their nest at the base of trees because that way they have a tree nearby to climb up and glide, otherwise they would make their nest anywhere if they could fly from the ground directly."

Or I could also think that there was not enough space on a tree branch to make a nest so they made it on the base of a tree so there is still access to a tree for gliding.

This is why A strengthens the stimulus in my mind.

Yeah, I get JY's explanation......but.... I just don't agree with this answer as Not Strengthening.

Oh. LOL. I thought E was correct because it showed that the "Seed Selling business" is doing bad, and I am assuming that selling seeds is required to make a personal garden. Hence the concept of personal gardens is doing bad in general.

So I thought E was wrecking the conclusion all together in a sense.....

If a Seed retail store went out of business, then how can sales for buying stuff for a personal garden be increasing? That is why I picked E.

But apparently it is providing an alternate reason as to why the two large seed retail stores are doing better as per JY's explanation. If one store in the area closes, then obviously the other stores will see an increase in profits do to increase customer flow....

It is important that I know why the answer is correct for the RIGHT reasons!

JY quickly gave a conditional reason as to why D is correct.

Restaurant will improve food (product) → Restaurant needs to improve food in order to attract more customers.

Well, Traintrack already attracts a lot of customers, more than MD, So I guess this negates the necessary and explains why the food is not as good as it is in MD.

I still got this question wrong and hate this question LOL .

So the way I did this question, I turned the conclusion into a conditional statement.

"Until" is class 3 and introduces the Necessary (and the Sufficient is negated)

Until voice recognition technology is improved to recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words, (Recognize) (Necessary Condition)

Voice recognition programs will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text. (Accurately Translate) (Sufficient condition which will be negated)

Conclusion: Accurately Translate → Recognize

Now we have to connect the "Homophone Situation" (the first sentence) to the conclusion.

Answer A says: "Homophone Situation" → Recognize.

This is possible if we do ("Homophone Situation" → Accurately Translate → Recognize) So therefore : "Homophone Situation" → Recognize, which matches A.

Now why this is like a Sufficient Assumption/MBT question and labeled as a Necessary Assumption question....I have no idea.....but this is how I solved the question.

For E, I guess when one part of the answer choice is not really necessary, then the answer is wrong....even though the other part of the answer is pretty good as a necessary assumption. That is why I eliminated E.

My first experience with Circular Reasoning. This is a good example of a tough question of this type.

This is the hardest parallel method of reasoning question I have ever encountered LOL. But now I know how to negate a conditional statement just by studying the subtle difference between the stimulus and answer C. I will definitely revise this question.

After studying for the LSAT for the past few months I finally understand what weakening answers do LOL.

I always thought they were supposed to wreck either the Premise or the Conclusion (despite what JY explained in his videos), but that is not true.....we are just trying the lower the confidence in the connection in the Premise and the Conclusion. (JY also gave a similar explanation in an earlier question in this section of about a store being vandalized). I never really understood this concept until after I reviewed this question and one of the previous questions in this section.

Answer A does not wreck the conclusion. AC A still gives the possibility that the gold was dug directly from the mine...but....now....it is also possible the gold came from a riverbed. Given this new information how can one fully conclude that the gold came directly from the mine only?

That is how a weakening answer works.

I did not understand what the contextual meaning of "overlap" in the stimulus...that is why I got this wrong. I was thinking "overlap" meant that the moose was traveling in out of other regions. JY explains what was the meaning.

A lot can be learned from Answer choice E.

-The negation of "many" does not mean the same as the negation of "some" ("not many" vs "none")

-The doctors did not need to discuss the actual activity, they just need to be prepared to.

B is correct because it has the word "significant" in it. If Yoga and Stretching are both equal in reduction of back pain and now they should be prepared to discuss Yoga (as per the conclusion), then according to the first sentence both procedures reduce back pain "significantly".

I felt E was too strong. But I have to realize that when we are trying to justify an argument, the stronger you can justify it the better.

Also the second sentence kind of threw me off and I was trying to look for answer that was relating to that sentence as well. I need to remember to focus on the conclusion.

For C, what I picked, it is wrong because it switches the placement of the conclusion and the premise. (C → P) instead of (P→C). Also, we cannot be too sure about what is "reasonable."

Now I know what preponderance means

Linolenic Acid is NECESSARY for Volicitin .......meaning Linolenic acid is in the necessary condition.

V →LA

and Most Caterpillars have Volicitin C‑m→V

Total: C‑m→V→LA

Therefore: C‑m→LA

B is the answer....and C is the reverse (wrong answer).

LOL, I forgot that the words "presupposition" and "assumption" were synonyms.

I picked D. But D is wrong because it implies that Haynes is still bad at his job, when clearly Young is indirectly saying that Haynes is the best.

By POE, E was the best answer here.

A. Is wrong because the stimulus stated that the babies did not mimic all the gestures of the scientists.

B. Where did the stimulus talk about muscle/nerve physiology for babies?

C. We do not really know why the Adult monkey's do these specific gestures.

Between D and E, D just assumes a little too much.

E is strongly supported and is a paraphrase of the last two sentences of the stimulus.

I spent a good amount of time on this question under timed conditions. I was trying to figure out which answer actually strengthens the argument.

A and B were quickly eliminated in my mind.

D and E were a little tricky. For E, the stimulus does not really mention soil and it is a really strong assumption that light and dark colored soil make a difference in reflection (both types of soil are brown though.....and snow is stark white......how can you compare Snow to Soil?).....So E is kind of like a brand new idea that is not that relevant to the stimulus.

D, was a tough one to eliminate for me. I was stuck between C and D. I ended up picking C over D because C talked specifically about what was mentioned in the premise.

I could not anticipate the right answer choice.

This is a great example of how "the only" introduces the sufficient condition.