Negating C would be like "An ideal bureaucracy will be permanently without complaints at sometime in the future", making the system not ever-expanding. So C is the correct answer.

Such a weird question. I read through the stimulus over and over and saw no discrepancy at all.

Why not D? I chose (D) because the man first said the only risk was being unemployed, and then indicated that unemployment's only consequence was unhappiness and since M already had it he might as well just quit. He clearly conflated two different types of risks, the material type (not having income...

On the third view, I'm actually getting more and more confused. I even made an analogous argument of my own to help myself see clearer. Here's my argument: A few maniacs hold the extreme view that restaurants can serve poops, people's faece. Some of these maniacs have even produced interesting argum...

Still don't see why E is incorrect. Sub premise: Other cities which did the same had huge returns. Sub conclusion/ major premise: In hiring the adviser, we are also likely to have a big payoff in several years. Conclusion: City council did a good job. E says in the first few years there are no retur...

On the third review, I'm still having issues with this question. The thing that bothers me is the adverbial clause in the conclusion. To me, the "although it would not be wrong..." part is just something that the author is conceding, so the actual conclusion is just the "it would be l...

This is an interesting one. Stimulus Premise: same gene, different environment, same inclinations. Conclusion: gene determines inclinations, while environment does nothing. If that's true, what would happen if it's same gene, same environment? We should have same inclinations as well. But answer cho...

I would be totally OK with (D) if this is a sufficient assumption or strengthening question. I'm having a hard time identifying the necessity in (D), since I think it's totally possible that SOMETHING fills that gap, while not having as much effect as radio. But if I have to justify this answer choi...

Answer choice A really gave me a pain in the ass, but now I've figured it out. At first I was thinking, if a youngster cannot discern whether the society is changing rapidly, how can he correctly decide whether to value the advice of the old or not? But then I realized that's not necessarily true, b...

I initially chose E because I thought the author was trying to deny the correlation stated in the first sentence but ended up denying a causal relationship, but later I realized that's not necessarily what the argument was doing. Also, plenty of people seem to be bothered by the wording in the argum...

I don't think answer choice D is phrased in a convincing way. I mean, women often buy cologne on a regular basis, then so what? What does the "often" even mean? What if women account for only 1% of the whole customer base of this company? Then wouldn't the loss of women customers become in...

I was struggling between C and D, but I've figured it out. Firstly, D is definitely the right answer, because it straight up negates the conclusion. The conclusion says anyone who follows the advice will lose weight, and D smashes it by stating that some people never have that result. I couldn't eli...

One thing I don't understand about A is the phrase "a few". What if the number of new cases is just 1 or 2, which is clearly a lot fewer than 6, then we still should choose IPV, shouldn't we? Or is it because the argument says "clearly", which is a strong tone implicating that IP...

D is the best among the five answer choices, but I still think D is too, I don't know, arbitrary to me. I don't see any sign in the stimulus that the argument takes that for granted. I mean, even if EVERY winner got enrolled in the plan by their employers, they can still "recognize" the be...

I‘m having a hard time understanding this question. Why can't it be the case that the reputation of a vineyard DOES always indicate the quality of its wines? The argument still stands since labor and materials also play a role in determining the price, and it could be that these two factors are not ...

Since when has "overhearing" become an evidence? Actually, none of the five answer choices appeal to me because I don't see evidence in anyone of them. Well, if I ever become a lawyer and argue on court that I overheard something as an evidence, I hope the judge, jury and the opposing lawy...

I thought LSAC wouldn't allow us to make tiny inferences or assumptions while doing LR questions. For E to be right, there has to be an assumption that Jenkins actually took the researchers' health conditions into consideration, and came up with a conclusion that the risk of wasting funding outweigh...

This must be one of the most despicable questions of LSAT. The tempting answer choice A, and the time pressure given that it's Q25. I fell for it without checking B to E at all.

I was struggling between B and D at first, but later I realized that if Jay interpreted Helena's remarks as B, he wouldn't have responded in this way, since " Some of these children remained introverted" is actually compatible with " most but not all children with introverted parents ...

I can see why E is right. But I'm just having a hard time accepting that A is not correct. I mean, if the agency has been consistently mismanaging the funds for ten years , of course there would not be enough funds even though they have increased multiple times. Or at least, it does reconcile the co...