you absolute dummy (me)!!!!! the conclusion already accounts for a negative impact on local businesses. Doesn't matter if they are the primary source or not. its def worse for the argument if incoming businesses are harmed by governmental regulations. don't get this wrong again or else

The argument relies on the connection between Tagowa's public affirmation of Pemeberton's guilt, and the conclusion, that the ruling of P being not guilty means that the jury didn't believe Tagowa's testimony. Why do we assume that Tagowa testified that P is guilty? Just because of the public statement? Her statement isn't necessarily a reflection of what was said in the courtroom. In fact, Tagowa could have said she thinks T is not guilty because of facts presented during the trial, but she could also think that P is guilty due to her own intuition. And it is her intuition that she publically stated.

Basically, T's public affirmation that P is guilty is not a reflection of what was said during the trial, and the argument assumes that it is. And that's why A is correct.

ok someone correct me if I'm wrong, but i think there's a trick to eliminating ACs. For example, ACs B and D state the societal response to the reduced speed limit. In my view, we can eliminate these because even if you accept or reject them, it doesn't change the fact that whatever was said in the stimulus still happened.

there is a correlation between speed limit and fatalities whether or not the speed limit was obeyed or enforced. I was able to eliminate B and D almost immediately through this, but want to know what everyone else thinks as well

the keys here are the phrases "most realistic" and "as well". Most realistic can be substituted for truth. The argument says if there were no difference between beauty and truth, or if beauty = truth, then most realistic art would be the best as well. As well implies that true art would share the same characteristic as beautiful art. So the unstated assumption has to be that beautiful art is the best. (AC A)

Imagine you clean a dusty table with a paper towel from Brand A and some cleaning spray. You clean the table once with one paper towel and a ton of dust comes off, but once it dries there's some dust left over. You use a second sheet of paper towel from Brand B to clean the dust and the table is sparkly clean and contains not one speck of dust. Then you tell your friend that the Brand B's paper towel is better than the Brand A because it picked up the dust that the Brand A wasn't able to pick up.

Your friend would be like "but bro - there was like...no dust to clean so that's no way to tell which one is better. Do you know that if you used Brand B first that there may be dust still left over? go to school bro"

thats what answer E is saying - how do you know that Super XL wouldn't have performed the same if used first?

I'm in NYC too, would love to join the group chat!

in NYC, would love to join!

I'm in!

huh

Yeah this passage can smd sorry sending hate from nyc thanks

So this question stumped me for a while and I was sure it was E, but now it makes sense. Voters elect politicians that provide and promote government assistance. And the argument concludes that government intrusion will not diminish. This can ONLY be true if the politicians support government intrusion.

That's why A makes sense to me. Politicians who run on promoting government intrusion must also do things to promote government intrusion for it to continue. Hence, they must keep their campaign promises!

For AC A - an "alternative explanation" implies that the conclusion that the orginal explanation supports is STILL true, but is now being supported by another premise

The author disagrees with the conclusion, so there can't be an alternative explanation.

We have an internal bias of thinking 'explanation' means conclusion and premise combined. In LSAT world, explanation just signifies a premise.

Good question.

two key phrases here, "vastly outspend" and "expensive campaigns"

Both allude to issues with spending a lot of money, so that makes B jump out as the correct answer