Got this one right but I had some question about the elimination of others:
A- don't see anything like this...what statement are they referring to? kept for now
B- wrong because the structure of reasoning doesn't matter, maybe their reasoning "structure" is wrong, eliminated
C- hung up on this one. i was thinking that maybe since one could possibly understand nature through deliberately isolated parts of nature, he shouldve been more specifics of the characteristics of the phenomenon as a whole versus those of the isolated parts..but then i was thinking...this could go either way. it could either help his argument or not, since it is ambiguous i wasn't sure how to take this. is this still a flaw? am i approaching this the right way? do ambiguous choices that could either help/hurt mean anything in these 'flawed reasoning' questions? more specifically, what does "phenomenon" mean in the case of the lsat?
D- you could think of it as separate but its not the best way to understand it, eliminate
E- this one was clearest to me in being the right answer so i picked it and moved on.
i got lucky...
also this is another just random question that has been bugging me. What do "double no" statements mean. For example:
No intelligent people are neither drummers or bassists.
Does that mean all intelligent people are drummers or bassists?