@ThanhLe The stimulus says the prolonged darkness needs to be followed by brief exposure to sunlight. D gets it backwards by saying that prolonged darkness after the sunlight is necessary. The stimulus says that the seeds are redeposited, but never directly states they need that to germinate.

I'm confused. If the stimulus mentioned some kind of continuous obligation that strayed from what initially seemed to be the main conclusion - /(ought to -> possible) then I think I could have gotten it, but there is no such mention. So the explicit conclusion here is that /(ought to -> possible) because there's no other mention. The entire argument is a negation, it doesn't seem to affirm anything. So why is D the right answer when it negates the necessary condition? Is it because it only negates the necessary and not the sufficient that it inadvertently affirms the sufficient condition?

For everybody that is pissed because C doesn't seem to weaken it (who I was a part of until 30 seconds ago), consider the embezzler as one of the ten people working here. Of 8 accountants and 2 actuaries, the embezzler has an 80% chance of being an accountant, and a 20% chance of being an actuary. So, by law of proportion, the embezzler is more likely to be an accountant than an actuary, which the author claims the opposite of. Ergo, C weakens the argument.

Blind review definitely helped here. 20% to 100% lmao

I'm noticing a common thread in these: the conclusion tends to introduce a factor that the premises don't mention, so the answer typically connects this new factor with one from the premises.

Is that something we can rely on, or is it possible for all answers in a question to address them both?

@legallyhaya The conclusion is that the TV program is biased because of the ratio of the interviews of people for:against, so the path of least resistance would be to explain the ratio without the program's involvement.

So, if the ratio was already there before the program aired and they match, then the TV program is actually not biased in portraying that ratio, ergo the hypothesis is weakened.

@ZippySincereFreedom I think this is one of those questions that rely on assumptions, and thus your common knowledge. I've noticed that I'm better with higher questions that rely on the provided information over assumptions than the lower levels that are easier but rely on more common knowledge. I get caught up in wondering what the question wants.

@smongu7280 The way "several" is used is highly variable, like with "some." If I say I have several donuts, I am not saying I actually have 51% of all donuts. Likewise, if you say there are 10 collectibles in a product line and that you have several of them already, it implies that you could have anywhere from 3-9; but, because this is LSAT world, several = some, and some is considered to only say there's a relationship, not the nature of that relationship.

@tar Looking at other replies, I think the idea is that the "psychologically dangerous" part doesn't matter at all, only the "inspires revulsion," because so long as the other named conditions aren't negated then it doesn't matter what else they tack on.