this question was the next level of hell. reminds me too much of LG

I ruled out B, D, and E and then chose between A and C. I ruled out A because there is no inaccurate data here, but there are incorrect assumptions. There is no guarantee that at 50 cent tax per gallon would generate the revenue. We cannot predict how consumers will react.

I hope someone finds this helpful. I ruled out A, B, C initially for not being good answer choices.

First, I chose D, the trap answer. My mistake was assuming the study was flawed, not the critic's response. In BR, I realized the flaw was that the critics's response was not as strong as it seemed. When the question asks to evaluate the critic's response, it implies the flaw is THERE. The question stem here is also tricky, and you have to infer that this is a flaw question.

E was a better choice than D because the critic brings up the unsuccessful farms, and the flaw is that it does not matter whether the sample is representative or not if SOME of the farms, not MOST can benefit from natural methods. The study acknowledges this and the limits for specific types of farms. The critic's response considers farms (generally), when the study makes it clear that SOME farms is a subset of farms.

I though the same thing in blind review.

I wish that there was a seperate analytics for drills to see what types of reasoning are easier or harder.

chose A but C was correct. I got the assumption part correct but chose the wrong answer. PAIN

I am interested as well, my ADHD is out of control. I am trying my best to study for November

I had B but changed to E in BR. Pain

chose A (which does not help the argument)

D is correct because it fills the missing piece of the argument needed to draw the conclusion

even 20 years ago, PVP was 10 times less than TP which solidifies the argument

I'm interested! also taking the LSAT in November

This is so helpful. Thank you for explaining

I love misidentifying context/background with a premise. Pain

I am interested as well

Would C be correct because we don't know the competitor's strength?

I am also taking November and hoping for a score increase and would be interested in a study group as well. As for words of encouragement, do not let one bad drill, section, or PT get you down. Your analytics will fluctuate as well. I noticed this with LR especially.

felt this, my toxic trait is narrowing down to two answers and selecting the wrong one

love how I got rid of C, D, E and narrowed down to A and B but somehow chose B.

had D but changed to A in BR. I was confused because I thought this was a flaw question and questioned answer choice D

This is a great analogy, thank you for this!

Would it mean the same thing as the the odds of something going wrong during whole journey (sum of the parts) because there are multiple instances where this could happen?

I thought the opposite of what was said, which is that the probability of parts (individually) are not the same the whole (combined).

by some miracle I chose D

small studies more common --> featured in newspaper more often

I anticipated the flaw prior to seeing the answer choices. This lesson was very helpful too.

I am not sure if this applies to all flaw-descriptive weakening questions, but for the last two we did, I used causal logic to pick the correct answer. Remember hypotheses, causation vs correlation, alternative causes, multiple causes, etc.

flaws were one of my worst sections, but now the right vs wrong answers are slowly starting to click. well we will see if I get humbled later

you have got to be KIDDING. I had B first but chose C :(