AT and BR I chose E, because I misremembered the options given, so the last one which is avoid in some other way, isn't E.

Correct answer is A, because it is stated that one way they adapt is by just avoiding the ones that they haven't adapted to consuming.

I have a stem background, specifically physics. The use of optics as a parallel to this legitimately hurt my brain, because the "Law of optics" they are talking about A) isn't a law of optics at all, it's a basic understanding of how perspective influences perception, and B) is the use of a principle that demonstrates that our perception of something is backwards, whereas the P of Max Util is demonstrating that our perception is incomplete. It's not saying that "oh actually the belief x is actually belief y, it's stating that belief x and belief y aren't contradictory."

I still recognize its right, and I recognize that the reason I discarded it is my personal experience and knowledge, and in future I will have to recognize that I will think way too deeply about why these kinds of answers are right or wrong.

Im scared now. Someone think of the chil--- Of my lsat score!

Hey yalls. I have some feelings about this.

I am generally pro-capitalism, because I think it has raised billions out of poverty, and elevated life to the state where im writing this on box that uses sand to think. Overall, capitalism has done some good.

But I also am trying to change my focus to also be about the bad parts of capitalism in these debates. I still don't believe capitalism is a bad system, but if I focus on the problems, then I can consider them in context with how a solution would affect the benefits.

For example, if we chose to move away from a profit motive entirely, then it would be functionally impossible to determine what the best uses for resources are. After all, resources are costs, and in our current systems, costs need to be outweighed by profits.

But if a cure to cancer is found tomorrow, and the cost for it is millions because of a pure profit motive, then I think there needs to be some form of intervention.

Overall, I want us to have a more nuanced conversation that "Corporation bad - NO! Corporation Good!"

Thanks for reading and have a blessed day.

All I have to say is that this has placed me in manual breathing mode, and Im not happy about it.

"You will find out, and you will not make the same mistake next time"

Oh how I wish this was true :(

Picked E and then D in BR >:/

I did think C was plausible though, so I'm glad that I got that right.

Im not here to talk about the logic of the question like you all. Im here to stand up for B. Now ofc, its not right, didnt choose it, not parallel. But the slander, that suggesting B is not logic at all is in my opinion, extreme.

Heres how I read B.

"Our memory of the 1960's TV shows could hardly be improved" Means, we have an understanding of the 1960's tv shows that would be hard to improve. Now, it requires us to make an assumption that because its hard to improve, its a good understanding, but I think that assumption is supported by the next statement

"Because so many of the television programs of the era are still rerun today". Ahh, so we can't improve our understand of the 1960's because we have such a broad base of maintained knowledge (the general principle behind a rerun).

Now is the logic perfect? No, the logic is easy to weaken. But would I make the same argument short handedly at thanksgiving. I sure think so. Because it's simply saying, we still see a lot of the 1960's tv shows today, and therefore we have a solid understanding of the 1960's tv shows.