If anyone could give me a numerical range of "many" like "most," "some," etc I would really appreciate it.

Really lost still with D. If the state of affairs were even worse in biology prior to the implementation of the new system, doesn't that just make the support that much stronger for the conclusion's recommendation?

D nailed me because I figured if most made more than the minimum wage, the conclusion of the argument wouldn't necessarily follow.

Also thought CM is a necessary condition for EF not sufficient??

Don't get this one. Aren't we supposed to take the stimulus at face value without question?

Still not getting why B is wrong. It does seem to be the same exact thing as C but in contrapositive form.

Great explanation but still a little fuzzy with answer choice B. If that in fact was true wouldn't that still bridge the premises and conclusion?

Little confused with the "without" here. Isn't it a group 3 negate sufficient not necessary?

I get it, thanks JY! It's really simple (even though I yelled many words that would be inappropriate here!). The people in answer choice E are ALREADY dead! Of course that doesn't explain the discrepancy.

Some good comments below but I still have to say Q16 is a real cheap shot! Unless I'm just really missing something, the word "idiosyncratic," in this context, is not warranted at all and as we all know, many times right and wrong answers hinge on one word.

So bottom line is answer choice A incorrect primarily because of the conditional nature of the last sentence? I've done dozens of LSATs and for some reason this is one of the hardest NA questions I've ever come across.

Yeah if anyone could give me a clearer idea of the basic difference between claims and evidence as applied to the lsat (this question in particular) that would be great.

Not getting the symbolic translation of the last sentence of Daniel. Wouldn't the "no" / "unless" structure give you the converse of what was written?

Exact same problem here. I completely agree in that it's a matter of warming up...HOWEVER, I still do very well on RC even if that's section one so I'm still a little in the dark myself.

How do we know (or is it even relevant) that the two or more objectionable characteristics in D encompasses a subversive outlook and the depiction of wholesale violence from the stimulus?

I picked D for the exact same reasoning

Does anyone know how accurate the scantrons are? I did a lot of erasing and I'm neurotic there might be an issue.

It definitely isn't too late! I'm 35 and recently quit a good job because law is my passion. The experience is humbling for sure, but we always have to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal and strive with every fiber to not be myopic or short sighted. It can definitely be difficult, I know well, but it's a must (at least in my experiences). Life is so, SO short any way you look at it, so remember what Lincoln said: "determine that the thing can be done and then we shall find a way."

These questions really confuse me. It wants you to make the connection between "force down prices" in the stimulus and "much less competition" in E. Isn't it just as likely that you can seriously weaken this by B's reasoning in that significant increases in unemployment and economic instability occurred!!? My goodness, is that going to be helpful to the consumer? Would really appreciate some clarification on this train on thought, from anyone.

Don't you have to presuppose for B that at least one of the other projects is superior to recycling? Why would that kind of assumption be justified here?

Question 15 is a real cheap shot by the writers if you ask me!

Hey JY. I actually got the right answer by interpreting the diagram a little differently. I used praising and blaming as two separate conditionals converging to the negated conclusion. I also disregarded the part "as we sometimes are" entirely. Would this be another correct way to do it or was I lucky? Thanks.

I would be up in arms protesting this one! I completely see how C is correct but so is B: draws a conclusion about the population (i.e. with adults in general being able to improve their mood) from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of that population (i.e. those who ate THE MOST chocolate). Feedback and any clarification would be extremely welcome!

I thought "no" at the beginning of the sentence was group 4 negate necessary? I negated the necessary then negated the sufficient with "unless," took the contra positive and came up with the wrong answer...

Use of the phrase "all instances" really got me. It looks like a cookie cutter wrong answer where you would say after the fact Of course you don't have to account for ALL instances, what was I thinking!