analogous example: bob's parents argue that he shouldn't spend money on sports gambling, but he believes that they should instead focus on the main reason why he's in debt, he's failed to pay off his student loans and payment has accrued. therefore, he believes they're wrong in saying he shouldn't place any more sports bets.

love it!! games is such an incredible platform that makes lsat learning fun and convenient while on the go!

SAME. i got it down to D and A, and intuitively, the second half of D made more sense, but then i gave too much leeway to A and i was like is the equvication flaw present?

all in all, trust your gut. be critical of the ACs because 80% time a given AC is wrong, so you need to identify the fatal flaw and don't look back

initially, i got this wrong by mistakenly equating the slowed retail sales (mentioned in the second sentence) with a decrease in retail sales ;/.

these are two fundamentally different things. C is wrong because, based on the facts presented in the passage, we do not know that the rate of retail sales for books has decreased. all we know is that the rate of sales has slowed down (e.g., in the early days of television, the rate of sales of books was +20% per year; now it is +2%—it's still increasing, just at a slower/smaller rate).

D is supported by the first premise in the first sentence; we know the number of book titles published annually has quadrupled, which is an increase. D is also supported by the second premise since we know that the sales of books had increased following the widespread availability of the television. in general, on most strongly supported Qs, you want to select an AC that features "logically weak" language that is easily proven, such as not always = just one occasion that proves the opposite of a given claim.