@uribemarlene929 found them. Thanks. Looking on it now. Graeme Blake I suppose. :D

@uribemarlene929 Hi there! what are these techniques that you're talking about here? I am having problems with RC as well. The only thing that I am solid are the games where I am always 0 to -3 or under. My LR is better than RC though somewhere between -10 to -7 (LR) whereas for RC, I usually have more than -12. Thanks! How are you faring on the LR and RC?

Hi there! Check mine above and tell me if it makes sense.

This was my way of reaching the right answer.

Context/Premise - There are no guidelines for what an expert must know. (Context because it does not contain the two elements of the conclusion, namely, 'expert' and 'anybody (most)'; premise because it contains at least one element of conclusion that being 'expert')

Major Premise -Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area(call this 'A2') is an expert.

Conclusion - Therefore, almost anyone is an expert.

Expert - E.

Anyone - A1

A2 as above.

Applying Lawgic,

We get,

A1‑m→A2

A2→E

----------------

A1‑m→E

(Valid Argument form 5)

Thus, translating the bold form above, we get that most of anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area which is clearly answer choice (A).

Is this correct?

For the first point above, I think they are trying to say that there are other things that may cause harm to the lobsters; also, the gill diseases are insignificant (at least in this context) to the lobsters (thus, the proposal being pointless as the proposal solely focuses on the lobster-gill disease issue).

As for the second point, that the gill diseases are significant, causes the argument to fall apart (again making an assumption that "something that harms humans is significant").

My outlook here is that we must make this assumption to make sense to answer choice (E).

How reasonable is this reasoning?

Cheers again!

Hello there!

Can someone explain how the supporting premise, "because lobsters don't live long enough" associates with the conclusion? I am failing to find a connection. And as for (E), how do we know that something that is harmless to humans would be pointless? I sense an assumption here, but I had to think a while to make that assumption. And I think the assumption is quite far-fetched. Can someone make some sense please?

Cheers!

Hi there! I have degrees from outside the US as well. I requested the documents with my institution there for which they would have to fill out a transcript request form. This forms part of the processing of transcripts, thus completing the same; meaning there is not much for you to do with these foreign degrees other than the request form, for the LSAC would automatically process them. I do hope that helps. Please let me know if you want to know further.

Hello @turnercm409 !

I do not have the material, which you willfully are talking about here, that is, the RC study guide, which purportedly helps people, you mentioned. Consequently, since obtaining it would be a godsend, the godsend being a good thing, I would like for you to send me one to su.mohan@jgoodwin765.com.

(The LSAT has questioned my sanity *.*; the above 'argument' is a (poor attempt :( ) to practice embedded clauses! lol :D, the very last sentence would be the conclusion, so send me one please lol :D) Good Luck with your preparation!