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

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

Let's gooo

So, this question required a cost benefit analysis approach?

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

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 am way too trusting for this test.

Open to either virtual or in-person

I would!

I'm in!