The argument is concerned with high salary as the most desirable feature of the job. And the author concludes that economists overestimate the degree that money acts as a motivator. We need an answer choice that can show that the economists are right or that we have reason to believe the author to be incorrect.

AC (B) states in many surveys people say that they would prefer a high-wage job to an otherwise identical one. All that tells us is that to SOME degree people care about the money but that's only if ALL other aspects are equal. So how much can we say that they really care about the money?

AC (D) states that EVEN jobs with the same salary can vary with other FINANCIAL benefits (TLDR money matters) just not completely explicitly. So D is definitely stronger than B.

Same... when I get frustrated though I go on a run. And I always take a 15 minute mental health (color walk) outside. The nature helps a little.

2 months ago LSAC itself was down just a few days from the exam. Today Lawhub is down just a few days away from the exam. :)

GG LSAC.

I'm sorry but when I first read this passage I didn't take the whole "chlorine" thing to be the biggest deal in the passage. Instead I viewed it as "hey here's an example of an element that contributes the destruction of the ozone layer" so why did all the answer choices I got wrong here have to do with chlorine??? This passage is truly beyond me. 

Someone said that A forces the assumption that people won't volunteer if they don't get paid. But for purposes of this argument that's just a separate statement that has very little pull. If the stimulus had stated somewhere that people would not volunteer unless they got paid then A would be correct.

"Total amount of vacation time" is the same for purposes of this stimulus. It's just deliberating between longer vacations and shorter vacations spread out throughout the year.

I'm also not really improving. But I will say that I did wind up fixing the timing issue. What I did was I practiced on paper for about 2 weeks without doing any timed sections at all. Instead I focused on spotting the important details (quantifiers, relative vs. absolute language, etc). People say this all the time and for a while I just kept doing timed sections which got me pretty far -3/-4 LR but then I'd easily slip back into -8. Slow down, doing the hard work by really dismantling every single question for about 2 weeks. My last PT I got -1 across the board. So slowing down really does help!! From there after you can easily spot the language speed comes naturally. I know it's hard because it feels like there's a time crunch. But if you start doing this now for just 2 weeks you can still spend a while month and a half focusing only on timing! And once you get the fundamentals down and are understanding exactly where you're going wrong will go very smoothly.

This is probably the worst question I've ever come across. Granted I got it right but the amount of assumptions you need to make to get the right answer is insane. The fact that it's a "level 3" question :/ get out of here. 

Silly ahhhhhh question... for anyone who is having trouble for it. This is the simple way that I rationalized it. For my notes I noted in my prephrase that I needed the answer choice to showcase some some of "pipeline" that will help the colonies that produce phenazines avoid coming into contact with bacteria.

You look through the answer choice and you're like bruh none of these match my damn prediction. Except one of them does. AC (A) provides us with an obvious A vs. B difference.

A - colonies no phenazines wrinkled surfaces which implies:

B - colonies phenazines not wrinkled surfaces

This difference can explain the hypothesis to some extent. Yes it's a huge jump in assumption. But none of the other ACs even come close to giving us any sort of explanation that might support the pipeline hypothesis. In order for the pipeline hypothesis to work it MUST be that there is some difference that the phenazines are making!

When all the answer choices feel wrong to me cross out 3 obviously incorrect answer choices. Leave 2 and understand exactly what the answer choice is saying. The correct answer seemed absurd to me here until I realized that oh shit yeah...

If you're stuck between two answers and you're not sure what the passage say it won't hurt to look at the passage briefly for confirmation as opposed to getting the question wrong because you were too stubborn to go back and just double check. ESPECIALLY if you know exactly where the info might lie.