To those saying this is just math, that's because math is essentially just applied logic. For those who like questions like this, you may enjoy theoretical math.

I thought it was pretty good at explaining why A is correct. I just think that this was an intentionally tricky question, as there's a chunk (the psychists' analogy) that is meant to distract.

I think the language, in the beginning, is so jumbled because that's just how much of a word salad this question is.

My biggest takeaway from this is that the answer I selected is too weak and doesn't satisfy the hole in the argument (i.e., it is not sufficient). Here's how I imagine eliminating B-E in the future.

B - is not specific enough (analogous in what way?)

C - "not less accurate" doesn't imply that such nations' economies will prosper

D - again, it doesn't ensure prosperity

E - we don't know if these are the same guys mentioned before, but even if they are, this doesn't fill the gap in the argument; could they do this and still be effective? Without answer choice A, we can't say this for sure

I chose B because I didn't notice the word "each" in answer choice E. But I still felt uneasy about B.

B doesn't work because the phrase "some crimes" is too weak. As this is a weakening question, we want a powerful answer choice (see Ellen Cassidy's Powerful-Proveable chapter of The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning for more info). B could be talking about one judge harshly penalizing one crime, but we don't know that this is a violent crime. B requires us to make too many assumptions.

In contrast, E is much more broad and thus powerful. Like B, it establishes a prior policy besides the mandatory sentencing laws, but it is so broad that it applies to all crimes, including violent ones. It's not so much that the writers assume that "more cops mean more deterrence" as that the answer choice presents another possible explanation (sufficient assumption), which weakens the commissioner's argument that the sentencing law is responsible for the reduction in violent crime.

Hope this helps!

I feel like this is an answer that you select from elimination.

While C is close, it falls apart, as JY says, because Terry responds with a third option.

Additionally, the opposite of "raised taxes" is not "lowered taxes"; it's "did not raise taxes."

Okay, I think I understand why A is wrong now, so I just wanted to share in case anyone else is still in the same boat as I was.

The video says that a "subset," i.e., a smaller group of the people indicated in A, could fit this assumption and still be true. So, let's play this scenario out.

So let's say 100 people are fit to answer choice A. But then 99 of them drop dead. So, 1 is left. Does it matter that those 99 aren't counted anymore? Nope, because "anyone" is still a checked box, leaving your assumption intact. However, the fact that those 99 don't matter is why this assumption is sufficient but not "necessary." Because those 99 people are literally unnecessary.

Hope this helps!

The best I can reason is that where D succeeds is in strengthening the premise-conclusion relationship.

C doesn't strengthen the argument, though C still appears very attractive to me. If someone can weaken C for me, that would be great.

Additionally, there could be more language criteria, so signaling alone, if performed by the animals, may not be enough. I'm not entirely sure. But overall, I believe we're somehow supposed to see that the gap surrounds the language criteria, which makes D correct. I'd like some more #help on this, too, though.

get accommodations. if you're already diagnosed it should be straight forward. go to a free clinic. at least try.

try to reorient your focus and "dump out distractions". So you can let yourself be distracted but not overly so. Sometimes I get distracted with something I've read in the passage so I write it down so that I can look it up later. Fidgeting helps for me so I play with my hair to give my hands something to go while reading. And study for long periods of time to train your brain to be LSAT oriented for longer periods. If you're scared of using up PTs, review problems you've worked on over and over again. Retake PTs too.

get accommodations.

Something that helped me accept E as the correct answer is to imagine that both sides are well-informed but disagree. Imagine this scenario in a boardroom where both Jenkins and Lurano share opinions before a vote for a research proposal. They know all of the considerations for this venture and are just highlighting different points of evidence to make their arguments compelling. Hope this helps!

I'm down!