I also had trouble eliminating C. This is how I broke it down.

Context: Pilot error contributes to plane crashes.

Premise 1: To address plane crashes, airlines have developed training programs.

Premise 2: These training programs cannot compensate for lack of flying time.

Conclusion: Airlines should rethink their training programs.

Gap: What's the connection between training programs and lack of flying time?

C) States that crashes will decrease if pilot training programs focus on lack of flight. Problem is that nowhere in the stimulus does it explicitly state or imply a relationship between flight time and decreasing crashes. Rather, the stimulus suggests that the training programs, as they currently are, cannot compensate for lack flight time. In this way, (C) goes too far for what is required of the argument. Also, no information supports the need to focus on lack of flight time; only that the other methods, by themselves, are reason to rethink the training programs. So, too strong of a word choice.

D) Satisfies the bare minimum that, at the very least, lack of flight time is also a factor in pilot error (in addition to lack of communication, etc). Thus, the airlines should rethink their training programs.

Stimulus

Blatt's argument: executives hire expert consultants because consults can help make better decisions.

Fring's argument: executives hire consultants because the more they cost, the more executives can avoid responsibility

Task: Strengthen Fring's argument by weakening Blatt's argument, show hiring for reasons other than decisions, or show how consultants hired to avoid responsibility.

A) Wrong b/c a company deciding where to move their manufacturing plant based on an expensive consultant's cost/benefit analysis provides a situation when a company hire consultants and paid high fees because they wanted a better decision. Supports Blatt.

*Assumptions: expensive ~ pay high fees; better decision ~ cost/benefit analysis

B ) Wrong b/c not enough information is provided whether the company hired the consultant because it wanted a better decision or to avoid responsibility. Supports neither Blatt nor Fring.

C) Correct b/c because highlights relationship between hiring a consultant and fees rather than hiring a consultant firm for better decisions. When fees were lowered, the volume of business dropped. Why? Potentially because the the less the consultants cost, the less companies could avoid responsibility. Provides some support for Fingr's argument.

D) Wrong b/c supports Blatt's argument showing businesses hired the consultant because the consultant helped saved money.

E) Wrong b/c company hires a consultant because they wanted to make a better decision ("whether to open to new stores"). Although both stores are only marginally profitable "at first", not enough to discount it being a better decision. Support Blatt.

Assumptions: whether to open new store ~ better decision.

Hi there! I quit my job in May 2019 so hopefully I can offer some perspective on your decision. Quitting has not been without its ups and downs. I think the answer regarding whether you or anyone should is highly dependent on circumstances, family, and financial situation.

Here are a few considerations:

Can you support yourself financially (rent, bills, groceries, etc)?

How many months are you giving yourself to study for the LSAT? 3, 6, 9, etc?

Are you a disciplined of enough person to treat studying like 9 to 5+ job?

Are you prepared for the possibility that you may not reach your score even though you quit your job?

Are you leaving a job where you have worked to rise through the ranks or one where you'd be happy leaving?

After you take LSAT, are you prepared to find another job for another year until you go to school? What is your region's job market like? Finding a job with similar salary and responsibilities will likely be difficult and, in reality, many employers will ask themselves: why should I hire this person that is planning to law school in a year (assuming you tell them)? Finding a job can also add an additional 2-3 months.

How will you handle your employment gap on your resume?

Do you have people that will support your decision (friends, family)? If you don't, are you prepared to tackle unemployment, solely studying for months at a time, without support or understanding from folks around you?

Regarding 4, to be completely transparent, I took the September LSAT and bombed it. My test score made me second-guess my decision considerably. I had foregone months of income, spent money rather than made money, and had, frankly, accomplished very little (in terms of an LSAT score) to show for it. I'm still in the process of studying and planning to re-take in January 2020.

This may sound 'doom-and-gloom' but I want to stress how important of a decision it is (dependent on your circumstances). I have looked at the entire experience much like investing in a business. Where, in this case, I'm the business and my long-term goal is getting into law school. I've had to adjust to repeated failures, re-evaluate my strategy regarding this test, and keep focused - all without any certainty that I will reach the score I want. Unfortunately, like most new businesses or startups, they fail. So, not reaching your goal is something you have to be prepared for and learn from.

Regardless, I have learned much about myself in the process, and I'm happy I did it (ask me again in 2 months haha).

In the process of applying for jobs (mid-level, my experience is government affairs) and I can tell you: navigating the employment gap depends on the type of jobs your applying for, and how you pitch your gap to an interviewer. If it's entry-level, seasonal work, then you should be fine. If you're applying for mid-level jobs, you need a good story.

I hope the best in what you decide. If you want to talk in more detail, feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to give more detail.

EDIT: For additional context, I had been studying and working full-time from August 2018 till May 2019.