@MatthewTodd No, you missed this one. The decomposing might hurt the environment and fish elsewhere as a whole but where it happens isn't relevant to the fish we care about.

Listened to the explanation (not great IMO) and read through a lot of these without finding a compelling reason for C. Here is mine.

Conclusion: dioxin is unlikely to be the cause of reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills.

Why does C work: it only works IF you either:

1) set aside the fact that dioxin decomposes slowly as important or

2) assume that it is highly toxic initially but then is LESS TOXIC as it decomposes.

The point is that dioxin causes the abnormalities, and we're trying to figure out how.

Think about the usual paper mill activity. Dioxin is steadily released and pushed downstream quickly and far. The fact it decomposes very slowly is something that either supports toxicity or is irrelevant--EVEN THOUGH the argument is trying to use it as a reverse red herring.

Simple yet diabolical.

C provides an answer: Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.

Turn off the paper mill and guess what: no more toxic waste within a few hours. Fish are resilient and recover to some degree.

That's what C says.

@ccoldren Could be they do nest elsewhere. How does it relevant to either the stimulus or answer choices? In this case it doesn't, which means for this question/the LSAT it doesn't matter.

@Abigail_ It's not directly addressing the conclusion of the argument: The decrease in the mourning-dove population in this area is probably a result of the loss of nesting habitat.

D does help address why the nearby orchards are no longer an idea nesting habitat. But where are mourning doves mentioned? They're not (at least directly).

B does include them directly.

@domesticatedwolf So what is your better answer?

You are arguing against the best "bad" answer here without an alternative, which is exactly what the LSAT likes to punish, either with wrong answers or too much time to get to the right answer.

The goal isn't to have your soul be reconciled to the answer choice's musical exactitude. There's a chance for A to bridge the gap between what was true before versus now in a better way than any of the other answer choices.

@MaxThompson well said. We actually know that Jackie prefers "complex rock music" from the stimulus. That's pretty obviously a subgroup of what's in D already. Does she like other rock music subgroups as well? Maybe, maybe not. D doesn't tell us that or anything additional.

@PkmnTrainerKevin then you should reread the stimulus. You unwittingly just proved the correct answer choice. The stimulus lets us know:

-they both are complex rock groups

-both employ acoustic instrumentation and harmonic sophistication of early sixties jazz

-the CH album has very witty lyrics, full of puns and sardonic humor, which is characteristic of some of MV's best lyrics

So yes: you and Jackie are aligned here.

D might seem appealing, but it can only be true if in turn B is also true...

Interesting question here with the unique stimulus formatting.

Stimulus states: Q:"Would it be right for the government to abandon efforts to determine at what levels to allow toxic substances in our food supply? A: Only if it can reasonably be argued that the only acceptable level of toxic substances in food is zero."

So essentially our first task was "would it be good for government to quit determining toxic safety levels"? And that was answered in a way that wasn't yes or now but instead yielded a question that superseded the previous question with two options.

Option 1: Abandon if reasonable to argue only acceptable level of toxic substances in food is zero.

Option 2: If not reasonable to argue, do NOT abandon.

Then we have to read the rest of the stimulus to find out which action is reasonable. We find out two things. 1) toxic substances in food occur that aren't harmful because of the low amount 2) essentially impossible to guarantee a food is free of toxic substances, only that we can't measure any presence.

Put those together and it's clear that Option 2 is the winner and our conclusion = answer choice A.

It's easy to conflate the fact of D appearing in the argument as a conclusion, but that's merely a supporting statement for A.

In lieu of an official explanation: the stimulus gives us a Thing + Do vs. a Thing + Do Not, with the additional note that Do doesn't prevent related X.

C fits the bill here: Thing + Do (buy books/year + Do use libraries) vs. Thing + Do Not (buy books/year + do Not use libraries), with the additional note that Do (do use libraries) does not prevent related X (reduce # of books purchased).

The connection is between pollution and # of cars on the road. Affecting either of those is what we should be looking for.

A and E both don't strengthen, so they're out.

Both C and D could be good answers if they had more to them. Maybe D includes, "Instead of a !00% driving commute, people now walk to a bus stop. On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do and overall are better than choosing to drive. "

It doesn't say that. Similar with more specifics on C that could result in a good answer.

B refuses to say "idle vehicles" but essentially says that with less vehicles there will be less congestion and less additional pollution. How? Because the lowest driving pollution is when a person drives from A to B without stopping. Congestion means we tack on more pollution to that total. So reduce cars-->reduce congestion-->reduce pollution.

If you are trying to do these questions for SPEED: don't worry about answering the question first, worry about eliminating answer choices that aren't relevant. Then circle back and evaluate what is left.

A: morality not in stimulus; out

B: welfare and transgressions both in stimulus. keep for now

C: threats to own well-being not in stimulus; out

D: harsh punishments and carrying out not in stimulus; out

E: extremely severe not in the stimulus; out

Now go back and evaluate answers that could be relevant to the stimulus. VERY often, as in this case, there is only one answer left. Boom: mark it and move on.

@Elijah_Mize It does mean "unquestioning" or "absolute" or "unqualified" though; that IS one of its meanings. However evidently it is not supposed to in this context.

@jmeer500 I think it's actually deceptively easy. B and E are obvious outs immediately. C doesn't make sense because ALL current mathematicians accept. D: we already know ALL current mathematicians would accept enormous.

A is a little tricky since it uses some when all is true, but some is a part of all.

For those stuck on why A is wrong: I think it's easy to gloss over option A and how it relates to the reading if you are moving too fast.

In the stimulus the critics are upset that the museum lost first-rate art pieces and violated its purpose. That's it. There is no comment of if the critics would have thought differently for a sale price of $1 or $300M. The PRICE is not part of their disapproval; the LOSS is.

This makes the rationale within A much weaker.

Correct approach: Does this contradict the stimulus? If no = could be true. If YES = FALSE.

Nuance here: D is true but incorrect as an answer choice.

It's true that the farmer doesn't provide an alternative explanation, but he actually never gets to that point of providing one in his response. Instead he just talks about why he does what he does (the ones he uses are safe) and how he does it (he's careful to avoid spraying her land). Cool. But let's get back to the original point of contention: neighbor says pesticides are being spread via water. To argue the benefits of the pesticides and how he uses them doesn't ever acknowledge her claim.

It's similar to a conversation with two people:

A: well you have to admit that-

B: No I don't. I don't have to admit that.

We never get to disagreeing or agreeing like that here though; he just avoids nonsensically.

@ConnerKline Disagree. The phrase is "careful to avoid", making it clear that they take pains to avoid doing it. That's not reason it's wrong.

@michaelly200104383 Best explanation I've seen. It's not about the sets or uncertainty, it's about RELYING CRUCIALLY. And the stimulus doesn't support the crucial reliance, only the convenience reliance.

@WillowBound2 Pretty good.

For B: The premise says that:

If equal treatment (exposure to material) --> (rate, quality, quantity) of learning will vary per student.

B just tries to obfuscate the fact that they are making rate and quality dependencies for learning. That's not accurate at all.

For D: I think the premise actually is stating that we can give all students an iPad with modules loaded for learning and 2 hours to learn. And if we do that --> there results will not be the same per student.

So back to D: the idea captured here is that all students should get the same treatment. The reason it is not that we might like or not like the fairness vs. enabling set out by that idea. It's simply incorrect to state that D is a conclusion that can be drawn from what we are given.

@tjsandhu0714 or for someone else: if the book is intended for a non-GA, the rules don't apply.

To be flawed:

P1) the book is for a GA

AND

P2) has to have utility AND aesthetics.

We are trying to show how it can be conclusively flawed. We know that P2 may have failed as there is only utility. But to even have a CHANCE of failing, what also has to be true? P1: we need GA as the target. Otherwise P2 isn't relevant.

The other answer choices are pretty obviously wrong.

• c: The staple foods of the Japanese diet contain elements that cure cancer.

This is a possible right answer as the diet and cancer link is there. Best answer so far.

• d: The relatively low rate of cancer among people in Japan does not result from a high frequency of a protective genetic trait among Japanese people.

There is a little tricky aspect here as initially it's people of Japan and not "Japanese people" in the stimulus only to later on actually say Japanese people. Since we have now zeroed in not on anyone living in Japan and are now talking about Japanese people, then this answer is now a better one than the above with curing cancer related but not quite as strong of a relation to incidences of cancer.

@christophergiordano I think the reason is that only one of the original premises ties to the conclusion.

P1: Liberal Arts PHD --> Improve Intellect

P2: Interest FG --> hired

C: Liberal Arts PHD --> hired

Somehow each premise needs to link to the conclusion; otherwise it's just irrelevant data. It can either link indirectly through another premise or it can link directly. P1 does not link indirectly or directly. P2 DOES link directly (has hired in common). Great; now we know we need a link between P1 and P2.

@gurbytown Certainly can't argue with that, although I would bet it will be rare for the grammar to be this poor.

Interesting just how poorly written this particular passage was. Rather than packaging all of the relevant information together, using language that didn't obfuscate the full meaning, and avoiding mid-sentence asides that embed more complex structures...LSAC actively aims to have poor constructions that aren't objectively wrong.

And that's my biggest takeaway yet again: if there is a series of phrases that are packaged together in an arcane way IT'S ON PURPOSE and CLOSE READ. Because a difficult question (or two or three) is incoming.