I wouldn't let yourself stress out too much. My analytics thingy looks like a heart rate monitor with the amount of ups and downs on it, and I think that's fairly normal. Yes, the noisy cafe probably didn't help your score, but what else is going on?

Are you taking too many PTs and not giving your brain time to rest in between them?

Are you getting more and more stressed as you don't see any progress?

Are there other trends in your PT data that this bad one fits into?

Honestly, and I could be TOTALLY wrong here, but I'm staunchly against the "study at every possible moment" strategy; your brain needs time to rest; you need time to relax and think about other things. I noticed when looking back at my data that my best PTs were all on Mondays/Tuesdays, which is probably because I had the whole weekend to get good sleep, and I almost never did any LSAT stuff on Sundays. I usually bombed on my Friday/Saturday ones because I was the most exhausted from the work week, so my strategy with the Oct. LSAT was to take the day before the test off and literally just watch Forensic Files and relax, and I'm feeling really good about how I did yesterday.

Yes, you should definitely study, but there's more to this process than that. Take time for yourself and enjoy things wholly unrelated to the LSAT. It's fall and beautiful as shit outside. Give your brain some time to actually recover and register the stuff you've learned by relaxing, and I'm sure you'll start seeing more progress.

The first environmentalist group is basically saying, "Exploiting features of the natural environment is a bad idea because the second you destroy that environment (i.e. once you start to exploit it) you also destroy any economic value it had." They're making an economical argument and claiming that no economic benefit can be gained from exploiting the environment.

The second environmentalist group is saying "Yeah, there's probably some economic benefits to exploiting the natural environment, and yeah, there may actually be more economic benefit from exploiting nature than from not exploiting nature. However, the economical benefits of exploiting the natural environment do not actually matter at all; the only thing that matters to this question is the intrinsic (i.e. non-economical) value of the natural environment."

Group 2 does mention economic value in their premise, much like the first group does, which is why this is a really tricky question to answer and unpack. However, group 2 brings up economics as an example of something completely irrelevant to determining whether exploiting nature is wrong. Their actual claim is that the intrinsic value of nature is the only thing that matters when determining that exploiting nature is wrong, which is a non-economical argument, and since "many" = "some," we can determine that "Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification..."

Anyway, I'm sorry for writing such a long response, but hopefully this helps!