Hello, Atlas:
I’d be interested in hearing your response to the following concerns:
Initially, when I read this passage, I was taken aback by what I perceived to be a gap in reasoning in the last paragraph. There, in lines 41-44, the author gives an account of how high-prices in special, prized types of tulips can translate into an overall, price increase for tulips in general.
But, I did not -- and still do not-- see where or how the author connects the first claim (i.e: that special tulips are costly) with the claim that tulip prizes can be jacked up across-the-board, even for non-prized tulips. Although the author connects the claims with the word "thus", an explanation of that connection is never given.
That flustered me. When I did the passage for the first time, I stopped in my tracks and got worried that I had missed something. So, I re-scanned the passage _ and, well, wasted time.
I’m wondering if: (1) The authors of the LSAT sometimes leave gaps of reasoning in RC passages to sidetrack students; and (2) what can I do next time to not get worried that I missed something if I see a reasoning-gap in the passage? Am I to expect gaps in reasoning?
Atlas LSAT rocks!