Actually 0.999... (infinitely repeating) is equal to 1. If you don't think so, then find another number that's in between 0.999... and 1. There aren't any.
No, I think I'm accurate. Did I mis-state something? There's a problem with the notion of "strong" and "weak" since that dichotomy can indicate either well- or poorly-funded, or high or low likelihood of success. We need to distinguish.
Stimulus: project A (highway safety) is over-funded, currently ineffective, and unlikely to be effective
project B (anti-smoking) is currently ineffective, but is likely to be effective if better-funded
move funds from A to B
In the Stimulus and the correct answer, the recommended course of action is a trade off: weaken the currently strong one and strengthen the currently weak one. But in the incorrect answer, it's an augmentation: strengthen the currently strong one and weaken the currently weak one.
To put it all differently: in the stimulus and B, the deservingness of resources is in direct relation to the current weakness of the project: the worse it's doing, the more it should get new resources. But in D, the deservingness of resources is in opposite relation to its weakness (a.k.a. direct relation to its strength): the better it's doing, the more it should get new resources.
test hasn't be released yet. and this is pretty much the most trafficked LSAT forum. so I don't want to be the one a-hole who's up here talking about what was in the games section(s!!?!?) before there's been disclosure.
although probably this is all moot after the thorough Post-Mortems that were up here/are up all over.