I think this is a poorly devised question.
Premise: Switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment.
Conclusion: A significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely.
AC (D) is composed of two parts:
1. the cost of equipment to heat homes with oil has declined sharply.
2. Price of heating with oil is now lower than the price of heating with natural gas.
While we can say that part 2 of (D) weakens the argument,
what if we assume that with part 1, despite the fall in oil equipment,
the price is still much higher compared to natural gas equipment?
in fact, what if the price for oil equipment is about $10,000 whereas
price for natural gas equipment equals $1?
#help
Someone with a good understanding on this question,
please enlighten my dysfunctional little brain
Hi,
I am a beginner who just started studying for LSAT, however, am currently very discouraged by the fact that law schools "must" acquire at least 1~2 LOR from applicants.
The problem with me is that I don't have any professors who I can ask for LOR.
(If only I knew I was going to prepare for grad school, I would have built relationships with my professors!)
Are there people out there who ran into a similar situation as of mine?
I initially crossed out (A) because I thought "...plowed only at night" = "...prolonged darkness.." (stimulus).
I was like " if its plowed only at night, its having its darkness more prolonged!.
However, after that prolonged darkness part in the stimulus, it says "followed by brief exposure to sunlight",
which signifies that ONLY prolonged darkness doesn't necessarily have the seeds to germinate.
It needs to be followed by brief exposure to sunlight.
US being far behind Canada, Sweden is a matter of quantity of its committees, not its quality.
In the stimulus, it is clearly stated that the committees from the three nations were equally effective in reducing workplace injuries.
However, because only a few companies are running such committees in the US, whereas in Canada and Sweden ALL workplaces are mandated to do so by law, US is left far behind.
(A) talks about quantity; it specifies that more committees will eventually bring the US to the level of C, Sweden
(B) This AC is tricky; it talks about quality, saying that Sweden and Canada's law-mandated committees are more effective. However, we know from stimulus that either way, the result is the same. It is only a matter of "HOW MANY?"
"Most new zoo animals"
old: 99
new: 1
"Most" new: 0.9
Situation like this makes sense why (B) SOME specimens~ is the right answer.
Here is my explanation to why AC (C) is wrong. The AC states cancer being a "prominent cause of death", however, as we can see in the stimulus, we are only discussing the risk of "getting" cancer, not "dying" of it.
Thus, to bring up the issue of dying due to cancer is somewhat off the track..