I instantly went to mapping this during my PT which actually made it much more complicated.

Seeing this as just being a quantifier issue (aka what's happening when a person offers and what happens when a person accepts an apology) is a much easier way to get to E.

You would see that both are sincere and that both acknowledge that a wrongful act has occurred.

@christinabarta1900 Thank you!!! This passage drove me crazy because I just couldn't distinguish between what was stated or what we could rightfully infer....

@KellyKim I'm on the same boat with causal reasoning questions! It feel like all the knowledge I have of the exam just leaves me...

I was between A and E. My thought process, if it helps anyone:

I ultimately eliminated A because I saw their agreement as overlapping (I honestly envisioned and overlapping venn diagram). Even though both of them have different preferences on the specific months the research should be conducted, they still agree that the snow melting is a possibility:

• J says the weather is cold enough to ENSURE it doesn't melt

• and L says "the weather will LIKELY still be cold"

In order for one of them to disagree with the POSSIBILITY of snow melting, they would have had to EXPLICITLY state that the snow WILL or WILL NOT melt.

For E, I had to take a step back and evaluate their overall argument.

J clearly thinks that research funding considerations (which is also a sort of ambiguous statement) is more important than waiting, and L disagrees with this.

where is this backed? Or is it just an inference we have to make from P2? "Judges are sometimes removed from cases for bias even though they are not actually biased"

@wanderingchimpanzee8 I think this requires less of an assumption, which would be a "jump," and more of an understanding of basic reality. If a large Escalade got into a crash with a small Fiat or a Beetle, this would be much worse for the smaller cars because the impact of the Escalade toward the Fiat would be much stronger compared ot a collision between the Fiat and the Beetle.

I def didn't love this answer when I was doing it under timed conditions, but it makes sense when you slow down to think what it's saying. This is also supported by the stimulus that the larger cars are safer to operate for their occupants.

They are SO creative. How do they know what fallacious assumption we will make??? Fell for B ofc.

Can I ask how late you applied?

@JacobBaska Thank you Jacob! This is all so helpful!

Omg, i finally see why d is wrong. By picking D, you're committing a sufficiency/necessity mistake. I couldn't distinguish the difference between D and E. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

@JacobBaska

I'm assuming schools review applications chronologically?

But still, wouldn't getting a higher LSAT score ultimately benefit you more than risking applying earlier with a lower score? I'm in the boat where I may have to take the November LSAT in addition to Sept/October.

@MichaelFire What made you think that? Is this a pattern you've noticed on certain inference Qs?

like how did i miss this oneeeeee

TMs I HATE YOU! But damn I'll admit this is so clever of them. How can they anticipate our brains and our assumptions so clearly....

ugh I approached this question so wrong. I think I didn't know what to look for during my practice exam. It's so important to anchor yourself to the "sheer economics dictates" because the rest of the arg is a causal chain and that's where the assumption/gap is...

OMF, I literall'y couldn't find an inference while doing this during a timed PT. It took me 5 min to realize what was distraction in this argument and what we could actually infer, and HOW the TMs wanted to get to inference D. Crazy.

@Makaveli678 C is a false contrapositive of the assumption, specifically it negates without reversing.

this is so easy to overthink but it's a strawman flaw. The author misdirects what the lawyer actually said.

I think I just couldn't grasp what this was asking and whether to look for something IN the passage or something that was bigger picture. This was clearly about the bigger picture of things.

I'm so annoyed, I did a pick & go on A thinking it was the control group. I see why it's wrong (because it really doesn't address elements in the CONC), but I didn't think that it was going "outside of the qualifier." Is that a thing on correlation/causation questions? I thought that mattered with conditional qualifiers and inference qs.

Congrats!! It shows you can do it!

@SK yup, implied causality ://

@suhyahn this made it click, thank you!!!

Enlightening explanation, thank you!

@r.wang1 LOL