@tanyabansal599

Hi, I'm late to the party, and I got this wrong too, but I think I know why we got it wrong. The third section sounds like it is discussing the ability for the jurors to understand the law, but in reality, it talking about their ability to understand how an interpretation of a law will affect future decisions. This is fundamentally different in an important way.

Consider this: Lets say you have a law but you don't know anything about it, and you hear someone interpret it in a way that makes it legal to punt puppies (dark sense of humor, I know). You don't need to understand the law to understand its implications on future decisions.

Likewise, the inverse is true. Lets say you understand a policy really well, like you wrote it and implemented it across an entire community well. Does that mean you will necessarily understand all of the implications of your policy? No, of course not, you could have a ton of 3rd order effects where a completely innocuous policy leads to a civil insurrection in one of your colonies, because they just like tea that much.

So the third section being interpreted as connected to understanding the law is wrong because it just about the effects of the law.

@andyfeng14001

Wow a long ah time ago.

@TheBigFatPanda

Its not curved out of the score on my single section :-(

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.

@AvishaiTaylor

That was the tricky part lol. It relied on our brains to draw the assumption that no government = chaos.

Is this true in reality? Probably. Is it necessarily true, or stated in the argument in any way? No.

That's one of the things I try to look for when reading these. If I strongly agree with the author, I know the writers are trying to pull the wool over my eyes with something and have me make an assumption that isn't made in the argument.

It is no coincidence that because of this, IF you noticed this implicit assumption as the flaw, then the rest pretty much fall flat on their faces.

@Jordan McKinley James

Choosing to be toxic on a site designed to help you improve is just a crazy level of cognitive dissonance. Like bro you realize that there are problems you struggle with that other people find easy. Like finding a partner.

@alexispantoja661767

Hi. I realize that I'm answering this a little late, but I'm answering for all the others who have the same question.

Ruths logic:

If you want to be a politician, you should have diversity of experience. So, WP -> DE.

Stephanie's logic: If you have a diversity of experience, you aren't necessarily worthy of public trust. -(DE -> WPT).

The reason that DE is the necessary condition for Ruth and the sufficient for Stephanie is most easily understood (For me) like this. To become a politician, it is necessary for you to have a diversity of experience. Ruth would agree. Stephanie however is arguing against an argument that states to be a politician (Or worthy of public trust) it is sufficient to have a diversity of experience. Ruth would not agree. That's the changeup that the videos are pointing to, and why C is correct.

@AdriSilva

I think that this perspective is only slightly wrong. I agree that E looks right, but if you analyze it, you see that they would both agree that it is sometimes desirable: Dana would argue for more extreme, and Pat is probably just on the line of agreeing with it.

B is right for an annoying and complex reason. Lets think about the spectrum of support for this claim; On one side, there is the complete disagreement, like Dana with a belief that they should only learn how they learn best. On the other side, there is a position nobody holds, that they should only learn in ways they learn worst. In the middle, there is they should learn both how they learn best, how they learn worst, and everywhere in between. This is implicit argument that pat is making, but instead of using the same words, pat points to two options along this spectrum of support, that being working on your own, or in a group.

Super tricky question for an LR right!!! I think that the key (personally speaking) is learning when to try to rule out answers, and when to go hunting. And this is definitely an eliminate, as tough as E is.

Hey, I am a student, so I may be a fool, but I don't think that is the mistake that was made in my head when I answered this.

I think the real reason why this one is wrong is that Dana is taking this to the extreme. She not only believes that it is sometimes desirable, but that it is Always desirable. So, Dana would agree that it is sometimes desirable, because sometimes is like some, aka more than 1 situation.

But I also think that Pat agrees it is sometimes desirable: The opposite of it being sometimes desirable is never desirable. But pat is actually arguing that it is sometimes desirable to tailor educational methods to the way a child learns best. Pat is arguing that both learning how you learn best and in ways that you don't learn best are sometimes desirable.

@laurensharpe445

Has anyone told you that you are a fantastic human being for sharing this information with us!

Super helpful, because I rarely get stressed by everyday life (Large Man lol), and so getting stressed during tests is a very unique experience, and this is helping me a F ton.

You are a legend!

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

@elizaklingler301

I think this would be hard to do, simply because it would not be verbalized. Kevin is doing everything he would do normally, (Or at least most things he would do normally), but speaking takes way longer than thinking, because he needs to explain all of the thoughts in his head.

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

Oh how I wish this was true :(

@kwangleestuff519 Bro is putting in days of work! Thats the level of grind I aspire to.

@NataliaL0107 Bro is calling me out lol

@Alyssam

I agree to a point, but what is the critique about? The passage really isn't focused on the debate, its focused on Mphahlele and his style and views on writing. However, I'm sure if you approached this using debate you'd still score well. 

@Anibal C Perez

I think there is still a subtle M at the front that makes the Fah sound crisper. Like M pah Lay Le

No im not avoiding doing the RC passages, you are :(

I feel like it's a kind of lose-lose situation. If they say it wrong, because it's a name they are unfamiliar with, and uses sounds they are unfamiliar with, then Kevin looks like an AH. But he also looks like an AH when he only cannot pronounce Mphahlele's name. And if he just uses Ezekiel, he looks like he is dodging it. Lucky for me, If the name is longer than 6 letters, I just use the initials anyways lol. Speed is the law.

(Low key, it's not that difficult; you just have to remember that not all consonants are hard in all languages)

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.

@Vegaofcain Cortisol levels are reaching new highs.

@7Sage Tutor

Okay, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation in the final paragraph of your reply. Papi's hypothesis is that the pigeons build an olfactory map from their home to their release point, on the way there. They smell the air and use the smells to determine the direction of the wind. As far as I can tell, it is not a logical assumption that they cannot use this smelling sense outside of their home territory, because according to Papi it's not based on familiar smells, it's based on any odor on the wind. This means that it uses smells to determine the direction of the wind, which it then somehow uses to find its way home.

Removing it from the range of its home territory would not change this effectiveness, because the logic of Papi's argument does not rely on familiar smells, or the smells of its home territories. In fact, Papi directly states that it uses smells to find an external piece of information, the direction of the wind.

I originally chose E, which is objectively dumb :( but I was lost.

on BR I slowed down and chose C, but I also recognize why that is wrong.

I personally think that this is a lesser of two wrongs choice and say that D probably has the least bad flaw, but to argue that it truly weakens the argument in any serious way seems misrepresentative of Papi's argument.

@RuthOlvera

I am not Latin American, but I quickly understood it because it's dead easy to understand that a colonial gaze is the just the impacts of a majority colonial perspective of media.

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.

@LSATurd

Okay, I am here to (Try to) explain.

"Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?".

First, what's our goal? To find the answer choice that violates the reasoning, that I am assuming is in the stimulus. Okay, brain, so we think it is either must be True/false, weakens, or Principle. Weakens we can get rid of because it's not asking us to invalidate the food labeling regulation's logic, but its asking for us to find an example. Finally, principle is looking for a generalized explanation that is being violated, but we want a specific situation. Therefore, it has to be Must Be False. All of the other types of reasoning don't accomplish these goals, so it can't be anything else.