Why awful language whyyyyyyyyyy

I got this one wrong because I approached the answer choices with the assumption that if the teachers you get are unqualified, then there is no point to getting them because they will not improve any students' score. I see how the 'any' in D and the 'overall' in the stimulus conflict, but now I also understand how it would not do anything if you negate it either.

Does someone recommend anything for my incorrect assumption? I literally attacked the answer choices thinking that I knew what I was looking for, and when I saw D, it sounded perfect. How can you fix yourself once you've made that mistake?

I'm having the same problem as acf111591. I see how the tranlsation above works out but I don't understand how to separate the not from the rational. I even diagrammed it as rational (/to acquire info) and that still doesn't make sense. How do we know when to ignore the not or to recognize it as a modifier and not an indicator?

This problem is an example of a long, scary looking question that is actually pretty easy if you follow the sufficient formula. Once you realize that the conclusion has to be in the necessary part of the conditional AC, it is easy to find the correct answer.

Would you say that strengthening is either reinforcing the existing premises with more support or adding a new premise and supporting the conclusion from a new angle...?

What do you guys recommend approaching this heavy science questions? I got lucky in this one because I drew sloppy doodles to try to process the information. Is there a better approach to processing a stimulus that is loaded with science?

Key word HABITUALLY -> probably a self-selecting sample

I literally chose A during BR because I thought that D was too good, too strong to just be necessary -.-

Kill the bridge!

This is a funky form of an SA/Weaken question. The author made an assumption and to get the right answer, you have to find that assumption that will bridge the information in the stimulus and then destroy it. The weakness is in the assumption made.

Why is C wrong? I see why B is correct but not why C is wrong. If the shocks have always been there, even if they were not named, does that not mean that people who make buildings and such know that there is a shock that they have to be wary of? Just because they barely put a name on it does not mean it has not been felt by others.

That subtle assumption tho...

I think that the root of the difficulty in this problem is in understanding how the two premises work together. When I first read them I definitely had a "wtf, these aren't supporting" moment but, when put together, you can see where the author is trying to get at. So just to clarify, the author is trying to say that dioxin is not the cause because, even though it decomposes very slowly and is therefore present for a long time, the little fish recover their hormone concentrations pretty fast considering that the suspected cause of their abnormalities is constantly present around them. As we approach the answer choices, we need to keep in mind that we need to weaken that combined super-premise, which needs BOTH the recovery premise and the slow decomposition premise to really be worth anything.

We need an answer choice that says that maybe the dioxin is not that constant among the fish, or that it phases in strength somehow. D reminds us that we are talking about a river, a moving body of water (as someone else below put it). Therefore, the dioxin is not as present as we thought it was due to its slow decomposition and the fish get to have a break from it whenever it goes downstream. This break is what allows them to recover for a bit. This correctly attacks the super-premise.

Btw, this was a pretty visual question. Only made sense to me until JY drew it.

Can anyone explain a bit more on D? I did not choose it but it still seems attractive enough for me to want a better explanation. I did not choose D because it does not tell you why, even if true, Parker is the last person to go to. I thought that it doesn't tell you how Parker is the last resort. Is that a valid explanation of how D is wrong?

I'm struggling to see the difference in the assumptions required to determine if C and E are correct. As mentioned previously in the comments, C is also assuming that just because one is more efficient, they make more lamps. E is also assuming something similar: that just because you make a lot of kinds of lamps you make more lamps. How do we distinguish which assumption is ok to make and which is not?

I feel the answer choice was painfully obvious but I told myself that LSAC wouldn't write such a an obvious answer.

The answer's language messed me up:(

It just bugs me that we have to assume that Kim is ok with this in order for B to be correct. It seems like a big exception to the rule of 'sticking to the text' and taking things 'literally'.

I'm sorry but could anyone provide further explanation for why A is wrong? I eliminated it on account of "radically" but other people say that it is wrong for other reasons which do not seem clear to me. I feel the stimulus does support the fact that rat physiology is different from other animals. I still thought C was better but this lack of definite certainty is bothering me.