A. more like a reconcilation between S and J than a defense of S's position
B. opposite
C. "future work" not mentioned, irrelavant
D. opposite
E. logically correct, even though looks awkward

A. Logically correct, despite its uncomfortable contents
E. S and J both admit that destroying is legal

Moreover, for difficult LSAT questions, the correct answer usually looks unreasonable, mysterious, powerful and grim at first glance.

For C, the use of "uncommonly narrow" is inappropriate because at least European countries are in the same situation too.

Can we logically infer from the question that the President "will definitely deploy armed forces immediately" or just "desparately wants to deploy armed forces but has not done so"? If the first is the case, then D should be the answer. If the second might be the case, then it is...

I think the choices are just not well designed

Both "parts that satisfy our government standards"(D) and "parts made for cars manufactured in our country"(E) could include foreign-made cars.

B is wrong mainly because there is no "evidence", just "arguments".

B is insufficient as an assumption.

Even if poor people "are able to live in", it is possible that no one actually live in, in which case the policy still does not have the effect.

I picked B but finally realized why B is incorrect. For B, even if there is inaccurate assessment, the interviewer can still sort out "highly evaluated auditions". The word "evaluated" refers to a subjective attitude, regardless of what is objectively good or bad. As long as the ...