You can conclude that you "can" from "will" - "will" is stronger. I don't believe it works the other way around though.

I had a similar thought process prior to eliminating E. However, it is important to note in this instance that it is descriptively inaccurate because she would have a good reason to take the train (to make it on time). Hating it is enough to establish that there is not a good reason to do it.

I originally thought E strengthened as well, but you have to recognize the assumptions implicit in what you've just stated. First, I think JY made a mistake when talking about the answer choice. "No less expensive" doesn't necessarily mean the same. It means it could either be more expensive or equal. To assume anything beyond what is stated, we would already be making the type of assumptions that tend to eliminate these types of answer choices. All that E does is set a lower bound, and we can't say that this lower limit strengthens our argument. If the price is equal, you could say that it "strengthens", but if the price is greater, then it "weakens". Since the statement itself doesn't allow us to assume one way or the other on this, it does not strengthen. Hope this helps anyone else with a similar view that I had on this question.

If a number of people who should be getting awards for scientific contributions aren't getting them, it would be safe to say that Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators. If they are accurate for only some scientists who receive the award but not all, in totality it is reasonable to claim inaccuracy. Would adding "sometimes" be a better and clearer answer choice? Absolutely. But that's why LSAT writers like to screw people.

Additionally, this question and its answer choices are based on what the two people in the stimulus are likely to believe, not yourself. Given the subject matter within both statements, it's pretty clear that they think that the Nobel Prize winners aren't representative of scientific contributors as a whole. While I think there could be a case to be made about them wanting rule changes, you have to infer much more beyond what is provided, and that alone should be cause for you to question an answer choice.

Just a brief add on - with all of this being said, I'm talking more about smaller logical assumptions or common sense stuff. I personally think it's complete horseshit that they expect us to know that Shakespeare wrote in English. To be completely honest, I never paid attention in my 8th grade literature class and I certainly couldn't remember if Romeo and Juliet was translated in Latin to English or if it was originally English.

Been facing this unfortunate dilemma as well and this is how I best know how to deal with it. Questions 1-10, don't overthink too much and answer quickly. Read accurately and concisely, but chances are they aren't trying to hide anything or trap you. Questions 11-19 might have a few curveballs. Again, you can catch most by reading carefully and anticipating, but if there is a 4/5 difficulty question in there, you'll usually find it when you're stuck between two answer choices. In those situations, don't always follow the "rule of thumb" that may give you quick answers on some of the easy questions. LSAC knows that and prey on those assumptions (example would be picking a weak NA/MSS answer choice just because it is the weakest). Questions 20-25 seem to be a toss-up. I've overthought on a couple where it messed me up, and sometimes it was the opposite. For those, I try to be more careful with not selecting an answer choice just because it "looks like a trap". If I don't feel good selecting an answer choice but I feel like all the other ones suck, I might go back briefly and see if I missed something. Most of the time, I did. Don't mean to ramble but I hear you and hope this is somewhat helpful lol.

Fair enough. Just pointing out that there is a pretty big distinction between what is real world "common logic" and the technical logic on the LSAT that has more of a theoretical application to the law (sometimes). As much as it pains me to acknowledge them, the LSAC are experts at the technical aspects of logic and confusing/convoluted grammar, not law itself. Guess that is why they like torturing people with hard questions under timed conditions instead of defending people in courtrooms or drafting up contracts.

Does this question suck? Absolutely. But it still blows my mind that under every 5 star difficulty question there are people whining about bad questions or incorrectness. Here's an idea: they tricked you and you're wrong. I have sat and stared at one of these videos for over an hour trying to understand why my answer wasn't correct - and it sucks. Note to anyone studying that wants a score over 165+: if you want to do well, try to see your mistakes rather than cry about the LSAC being mean.

My reasoning:

Premise: Convince of qualifications -> Expert

Conclusion: Anyone -> Expert

Filling in the blanks: Anyone -> Convince of qualifications

Anyone -> Convince of qualifications -> Expert

If this helps anyone: I chose E ahead of my original D answer in BR by noting that a redirection of funds would still not result in a net increase in spending, which is allowed by the major premise. E on the other hand stipulates that a refund (and therefore an increase in spending) can occur if the workers are used more efficiently.