I thought there was no relevance to noneconomic reasons but recommending what legislators shouldn't do requires more support, that's where the cost/benefit analysis comes in.

Think I conflated the idea of melting and Antartica, so I didn't blink twice when it concluded the ice sheet must have melted.

I am way too trusting for this test.

So, this question required a cost benefit analysis approach?

When you go hunting for the rule in the answer choices, is it fair to say you're also looking for an assumption?

Open to either virtual or in-person

I'm going to get a 160 before the August test

I'm going to get a 165 on the November LSAT!

Let's gooo

I got this wrong because I thought I got tricked :(

So, how would you test this conclusion to ensure it's not a trick? #help (Added by Admin)

I would!

I'm in!