I convinced myself that the author was skeptical because I only read the sentence where oscillation was mentioned.

Looking at the other sentences, it seems clear that the author in fact has accepted that researches had indirectly proved the process exists.

If (D) was correct, the second to last sentence would probably sound different:

They claim that they obtained experimental confirmation of the theory by generating one neutrino type.....

The question stem made this problem challenging for me:

"The approach to solving the dark matter problem"

To me, this sounds like it is referencing the last two sentences only and asking us to find an analogy for the next steps that scientists plan to take.

(A) seems attractive in this case since it says in analogous terms:

scientists are seeking info on how the universe works and learn that elementary particles hold the answer

However, this AC overstates the confidence scientists have in elementary particles holding the answer.

When restating the question stem in simple terms:

Which situation is most analogous as the one described in the last paragraph?

(D) seems more attractive. Refocusing on the entire paragraph, we see that scientists collected some but not all of what they need.

It's hard to identify a takeaway for this one, but perhaps I should remember to really think about how each word contributes to the situations in the AC.

If I noticed that there was a disparity between the strength of language in AC(A) and the last paragraph, that would have prompted me to re-evaluate my choice.

@JuliaRose super helpful, thank you Julia! I did request writing utensils. I think I will bring all of that just in case per your recommendations!!!

@nr I will be taking a pencil/paper version of the test

I was too eager to remove complexity as an option.

The language in Passage (A) states that complexity is good, but too much is bad.

The language in the question stem is soft, saying "linked to positive experiences"

An analogous example might be that I enjoy dessert after a meal but if I have to eat an entire cake, I will get a stomach ache and be unhappy.

Cake is linked to my enjoyment, there's just that asterisk for extreme cases.

I totally forgot about P2 and when I read (A), I was like how on earth does do the norms recover the "costs associated with developing a comedic routine." My head went to thinking that the main consideration would be whether the material works or not.

The key word here is "possible." The norms make stealing jokes frowned upon which is a necessary condition for ownership of some particular IP. Just like how making an app would be worth the investment only if Apple doesn't come along immediately after and steal it.

(B) still annoys me because it says "role played" I think that language implies that Gilman had a hand in developing the view or controversy. I think if it said something like

"a description of the viewpoint of a particular writer in intellectual controversy over the consequences of a scientific theory"

I would have figured it out more easily.

This one killed me, but here's my post BR take: words might sound good independently but combined they're bad.

(E) sounded good to me. It hit on all the main concepts: theories, versions of that theory, etc. But when thinking about the implication of the phrase "general type of scientific theory," (E) is wrong.

An intro to a general type of scientific theory would have looked like an intro to Darwins theory of natural selection (maybe something about the birds and their environment), but we don't get that. Instead, we get an intro to the interpretations of a general scientific theory.

Also, "one writer's version of that theory" is misleading. Gilman is not modifying Darwin's theory of evolution. She is instead discussing how she thinks it relates to social systems.

I found both (B) and (E) compelling in my first pass.

(B) sounds good because we know as air recycling decreases, ease at which disease spread decreases. However, there are a whole set of assumptions one has to make here like: people today are not better vaccinated against airborne illnesses than they were before 1985. In other words, there is range of factors that determine whether someone contracts an airborne illness and the stem is telling us how only one of those changes over time.

(E) sounds good too. My hesitation was that there might be other things that had changed from re-1985 to today, like more people flying on planes in 1985 or more people smoking which might increase CO2 despite frequent recycling of air. Language like "similar flight" and specification over the timing of the flight eased these concerns. At the end of the day, 1 recycling of air will have more CO2 than will 3 recycling of air.

@c00lbeans I like to highlight words I don't know and then move on to POE. Then, if I don't find a clear correct answer, I can return to the AC and evaluate the word more closely.

I think that's helpful because then you don't waste your time on an AC that you ultimately can eliminate for other reasons.

(C) almost caught me. A low-res summary of this word AC would be:

If risk taking businesses with growth potential have debt, their inability to pay back money is fine.

This is saying that we know what conditions qualify for exemption from punishments in the minds of punitive supporters.

But, all we know is that if they can't pay it back, they are going to feel the wrath.

@KelliYuriMatsumura I was coming here to type exactly this. "First instance" totally threw me off. I latched on to that first phrase "better served than is immediately apparent" and then removed the "first instance" language, so the final AC was "are better served than is immediately apparent by laws designed to provide a remedy for debtors"

Takeaway: If you can see why an AC is wrong, don't force it.

@KiranPoudel seems a little weird for me too. Michigan turned from a "Target" to a "Reach" after I added 5 points to my hypothetical LSAT. At the end of the day, I guess this shows that everything is getting much more competitive...

@MisterTops (C) still requires some assumptions. Like that scientists accept Jones's theory and that scientists will be biased towards the lines of research they choose. Wouldn't disproving Jones's theory cause more shockwaves in the scientific community than simply proving something everyone already knew (just spit balling here).

You can think of (B)'s analogous case. If an editor spends lots of time looking at a paragraph written by John and skims over a paragraph written by Mary, there is just a higher probability that they will find corrections/edits in John's work.

@Peter786 I like your point about how "root"" impacts what Varela is saying.

She's not saying curiosity can also be justified, rather that curiosity is part of scientific inquiry

I conflated "legitimate scientific inquiry" and "advancement of scientific knowledge"

I thought the stim was saying:

Need to consider if A or B

Justified --> B

Need to keep track of these ideas

It's crazy how subtle "Eschewing" is and that if you miss that, you really miss half of Eltis' argument

I thought (A) was saying they were from the same generation, so annoyingly worded.

Argument:

Doctrine #1 says X. Doctrine #2 says Y. Some things include both X and Y. Therefore, Doctrines #1 and #2 are wrong.

Assumption:

1. We cannot have a little X and little Y (they exclude each other)

(A) says this but in a difficult way. It says only half of the assumption above: Doctrine #1 with X cannot have Y. Despite feeling incomplete, it still is necessary. When negating, it immediately is apparent that (A) would destroy the conclusion.

(D) is wrong because the support is that there are some examples of crossover between #1 and #2, not most are.

Structure of arg.: Some people believe X is the cause for a phenomenon for a certain species. However, Y (naturally occurring) could be a cause too. Therefore, we can't be sure if it is X or Y.

Similar arg: Parents believe carrots make boys' eyesight better. However, most children naturally get better eyesight as a they age. Therefore, we can't be sure carrots actual are causing better eyesight.

Underlying assumptions:

1. The species were care about experience Y like most species

2. We can't measure Y and account for it

(A) says the species we care about could still possibly be part of the group that experience natural variation in population due to weather.

(C) says it was either X or Y that caused the decline but not both. Tempting given the second assumption I was thinking about, but in the case that both factored into the population decline, scientists could still never figure out what the real cause or causes were. The fact is that with natural declines, it makes it impossible to determine how much other things contribute.

In BR, I thought of this question in terms of Supply and Demand.

For (C), having better construction techniques would result in a greater supply which would in turn cause more lamps in the M period.

For (D), having a direct competitor for light (fire pits) would reduce demand for lamps thereby decreasing the total # in the M period.

For (E), having different options doesn't have an impact on need for lamps or ability to provide lamps. Take phones for example:

If I release a new smartphone, the total # of smartphones in the world is likely to stay the same. Perhaps Apple's and Samsung's market shares will decrease, but the overall # won't fluctuate that much.

Similarly, in the cave, more options doesn't necessarily mean more lamps in total.

underlying assumption here is that:

there is something about having an engineering degree and no sales experience that makes you especially able to excel as a sales representative

the evidence is flawed:

out of our company's pool of sales representatives, most of the best have an engineering degree and no sales experience

That's like saying:

Out of professional basketball players, the best ones went to college to play basketball.

Well duh - most NBA players go to college generally, so it is not surprising that most of the best share this quality

For there to be an advantage at our company, people with an engineering degree and no sales experience would need to be disproportionately represented in great number as the best.