The only thing I would add is that answer choice C actually makes the discrepancy more perplexing. If scientists reported that the need for exposure to sunlight to produce vitamin D, which fights skin cancer, is less than previously thought, then we are taking away an additional incentive for people...

this is a necessary assumption question. The stimulus says that Minlandians speak two languages: Boltese, and Minlandian (which is their native language). Then the stimulus says that Minlandians watch TV programs in Boltese but actually spend more time per week reading for pleasure (although we don'...

The author concludes that the birds' preference for crested vs noncrested is one that is LEARNED, and NOT genetically predetermined. The evidence offered in support of the conclusion is that birds raised in crested flocks, when moved to a mixed flock with crested and noncrested birds, will select a ...

Answer choices A and E are both time-shift flaws that occur frequently on the LSAT. Just bc something has happened in the past doesn't mean it will continue to happen in the future. Just bc something is happening now, doesn't mean it will continue to happen in the future. Watch out for this common f...

Would appreciate it if one of the instructors can make sure that what I am saying is alright. C (cattle ranchers) S (ski resort owners) W (like long winters) L (lawyers) The first two premises give us: C--> ~W S--> W Third premise yields: L <--(some)--> C --> ~W The third premise abov...

Two most tempting ACs were (D) and (E) (D): Do all of the seats in the city council have to be filled by new people in order to shake up membership? Couldn't some, or most of these seats be filled but not all of them? If the Democrats control the House 55% to 45%, SOME seats filled by Republicans c...

I feel like I 90% understand this question. Opening it up to the forum in hopes that someone can fill in the gaps. I have read some online explanations for this question but did not see anyone mention the whole-to-part/part-to-whole flaw. Is that not happening in this question? I thought that might ...

The conclusion says that "the fact that something is better than nothing is not a god enough reason to use the therapy," this is not the same as saying it isn't effective, it's just saying THAT argument isn't enough (because it's also complicated and expensive). What if the therapy also h...

I disagree with your explanation for answer choice B. The important distinction to be noticed in answer choice B is that the medicines would treat the disease AFTER you've already contracted it. So it is plausible to assume that the sale of vaccines designed to PREVENT the diseases would not decreas...