This question boils down to two words in answer choice A: "adversely" and "most".

Notice: if you remove those two words from the AC, it would make the answer choice on equal footing with the other ACs. It would read:

"Pesticides that affected wildlife in North America have been banned since the 1970's."

The powerful thing about "adversely" and "most" is that it removes assumptions you're required to make. "Adversely" indicates a sure degree of harm, while "most" covers the idea of only a minority of animals being affected. So now we know, without having to assume, that this pesticides were in fact harmful, and it in fact affected most animals. That's a small assumption away from "the Deer used to be affected by the pesticides", a much smaller assumption than is required for the other ACs.

(D), for example, is baiting you with assumptions. For instance, "wolves raised in captivity" doesn't necessarily mean the wolves are less dangerous, for all we know they could be even more dangerous to the deer population due to being raised in captivity.

This is where lawgic takes a back seat. If you think about this in normal terms, as if your friend told you this, I feel like you'd more quickly realize the meaning than if you neatly wrote it out and unpacked its meaning.

#help

Here's how I saw this argument:

C: To distinguish between interpretation and easy enjoyment writing is a specious distinction

Major Premise: Why is the distinction specious? - Because neither should be interpreted.

Minor Premise: Why should neither be interpreted? - Because it cuts you off from the emotional impact of the work.

I saw this as a conclusion, sub-conclusion, minor premise argument. So, when I was looking through the ACs, I didn't find "minor premise"; but I did find "support". In my thinking, a minor premise is support, so I picked B.

Is my reasoning here right? It seems JY didn't make the sub-conclusion argument, he just saw it as a normal premise.

If you aren't aiming for a 175+, please do yourself the favor of skipping questions like this within the first minute.

It's not necessarily difficult, but it's so vague, so hidden, so complex, that questions like this simply aren't worth the time spent for the single point. At the 170 level, you're looking at -9 to -12, and you can easily have a question like this take up one of those wrong questions.

Me during this question:

40 seconds in: chose (A)

Then I stared at the paper for another 1:40.

Chose (D) and moved on.

Me during Review:

:/

I'm curious to know how the LSAC views a question like this. I found it to be immensely difficult, however 7sage considers this question 3/5 difficulty. At the same time, I've done questions 7sage considers 5/5 difficulty with ease.

Does the LSAC consider a question like this 5/5 difficulty, but the 7sage population got it right enough to consider it 3/5?

I just hate it when you struggle on a question, stare at it for 30 minutes straight, finally figure it out, go on 7sage to see how other people felt and it's only a 3/5 difficulty question that most people seemed to not even struggle on. Yet, with all that being said, this question still has the characteristics of a harder LSAT question, even when most people didn't find it that difficult.

(D) is the LSAT writers having fun. It's pretty hilarious if you think about it

To echo what NotMyName said, speed certainly is a function of ability. Speed issues are a result of not being familiar enough with the material. Trust me, that bar is VERY high to finish with enough time to go back.

However, time is also a consequence of strategy. In that sense, I never really try to be 100% sure of every answer choice I pick. I usually go for 70 - 80% per question, lowering that bar for harder questions. Try to look at it like that, hope that helps!

Rate.

Is "Good hunters can kill prey that weigh up to half their body weight" a conditional statement? I think the "can" threw me off.

So if I say "Becky can play basketball", would it be "IF you are becky, then you CAN play basketball"?

Here's my main question about D:

Let's say that we assume it's true. It costs $10 to ship, but they charge a $100 handling fee, thereby making $90 in profit.

Here's where my question comes in. What if the product itself costs $500 to produce? So, you're making $90, but also giving away hundreds of dollars in the free product. In that case, D falls apart, because they're losing almost $400 in offering a free product, but only making $90. Can anyone reconcile this?

#help

JY claims that answer choice A is wrong because it's not a premise.

This is where I have a bit of trouble... It certainly seems to be a premise for the philosopher's argument, but not a premise for GRAHAM'S argument.

If A was switched out to say: "It's a premise of the PHILOSOPHER'S argument", would A be correct? (assuming B was not present)

Even if it is an example used to show that Graham's premise is false, isn't that a premise in itself?

Hope that makes sense!

Damn 37 minutes, I better get some popcorn

#help

I understand that E is wrong because the conclusion is a hypothesis, not a phenomenon. However, like the question other question here being posted, is it possible to have an explanation of a conclusion not support that conclusion?

I hate myself for having picked D.

Argument: Most users won't litter.

D) Infers that since a few won't litter, most won't litter.

Descriptively inaccurate. We already know that most won't litter. Closer reading next time.

On the timed test I eliminated B immediately, and chose A.

On BR, I eliminated A pretty quick and chose B.

Kinda funny how that works.

My problem with this question lies in the difference between "indirect" and "unforeseen" .

You can indirectly cause something without intending to cause it. This implies that they intended to cause it, which the argument itself never makes clear.

How I see this question:

Sometimes a reader BELIEVES a poem expresses ideas that contradict each other.

Therefore, the author of the poem clearly didn't mean to express that idea.

Assumption: What the reader BELIEVES is actually the case. The reader(s) could be crazy people who believe everything is a contradiction. Water is good? Contradiction! The sky is blue? Contradiction! If these are the readers we're talking about, then what do their beliefs matter?

I'm also pretty sure another necessary assumption is "great poems usually don't express contradictory ideas".

100% process of elimination for me on this one.

The other answer choices weren't even close.

Isnt it funny how one single word can make a question exceedingly difficult?

LSAT is a detail driven machine. One word missed = 90% increase of getting the question wrong. Word accounted for = 90% increase of getting the question right.

I hate it when you spend almost 3 minutes staring at a question and choose the wrong answer choice. Then you come back in BR and get it correct within a minute, and wondered "why was this even hard in the first place?"

When I read over C, I was like "yeah that sounds about right - these people must be going crazy or something".

Then I thought... That's way too simple for the LSAT. Answer choice C: They're crazy (basically). So I was like.. I need to complicate this like the LSAT would, so my mind convinced myself that B was the answer choice I was looking for.

Sadly, B just suggests that you're crazy yourself for drawing such a conclusion. This was an odd question for sure, kind of a dirty trick in my view by the writers but what can you do. Guess it can teach you that anything goes on this test. If they're crazy, and it's an answer choice, then pick it.

saw it... lol

If answer choice A read:

If well written, then it will be published

Would this also count as a sufficient condition? Meets one of the qualifiers, but not the other?

Another reason why A is wrong:

It says: Decaffeinated BEVERAGES (doesn't specify if its coffee or not, could be either, but the study is about coffee).

Answer choice A could be talking about decaffeinated coke, or pepsi, or root beer, in which case it doesn't really apply to our study.