@J.Y.Ping I second @SirHarvey. I know the new layout is supposed to match the new LSAC layout they're rolling out for August, but it just feels more clustered and difficult to navigate.

I'd rather practice on the old layout to understand the material, and then start adapting to the new layout. Instead I have to try and grasp the material in an unfamiliar layout.

@Kevin_Lin I'm confsued with this question. I ruled out B because I feel like the author takes other surgeons into account. He dosen't deny that there are other surgeons who are competent, just that General Surgeons are HIGHLY COMPETENT.

Kevin connects B with the passage because there could be other "highly competent" surgeons. But that's NOT what B says. B just says there are other competent doctors who can preform surgery.

Being competent enough to preform surgery does not gurentee they are highly competent. The passage explicetly states, "no one would want to risk surgery unless it was preformed by someone highly competent to preform surgery." This only establishes a threshold, not that being competent enough = highly competent.

I understand why I got this wrong, but I just want to call out something in the explanations.

The reason some of these answers are wrong is becaue the stim never says anything about orbiting the sun. But the right answer says something about orbiting the sun. Confused about that criss cross logic there.

Stupid "exclusivley" tripped me up and I made NA mistake

I honnestly think that D is a flaw in the author's reasoning because they claim "10 workers can be fired" but never those specific 10 absentees. For all we know, the reason production is still normal is becuase some people are putting in more effort. If you're firing 10 random employee's, one of those workers could be fired and bring down production.

However, I agree that it's not the most vulnerable claim, but it is a flaw nonetheless.

I looked up why E is wrong. I think they put down the wrong explanation.

E introduces an alternative, saying "These businesses lost thier power, but they acted responsibly." But the author never says that acting irresponsibly is the only method, just that if you do society will take away your power.

E is wrong because the author never says social irresponsibility is the ONLY method to losing power, just that it's one method.

I find it's weird that D argues the author denied the existance of the universe when we only see them denying the relationship.

That's like saying A causes B. Because we cannot measure A, it dose not exist. But we only claim the relationship does not exist.

I'm sorry but I can't understand why A is correct. The author provides 2 examples why there is no causation.

• People without damage develop schizophrenia.

• People with damage don't develop schizophrenia.

I can understand how A diposes the second example, but I can't understand how it goes against the first. Even if some damage causes schizophrenia, how can a chromosone without any damage have schizophrenia.

This is the dumbest question I've seen on here by far. You can't make the assumption that hot tempratures cause more errors than cold tempratures because the passage only says "temperature."

At the very least I think this deserves to be a lvl. 4 question just becuase of B.

The answers seem to contradict one another here. If parliament lacks the power over it's own legal power, then joining the multinational body should increase it's power.

That's outlined in C becasue now they can end purchasing commitments (mentioned elsewhere in the passage) at any time.

But if I chose C, that means accepting parliament gained more power. So wouldn't E also be correct?

How can E be wrong and C be right when they both disscuss parliament gaining more power?

Effective vs. Efficent. Damn

I think a better way to think about this than what the video provides is below:

If you're arguing that "we don't know if falling apart makes it impossible to detect." Then humor me this - if it were not the case, and we could detect methane after it falls apart, how can we tell the difference between 1,000 year old methane and recent methane.

"Well, maybe some of the methane wasn't hit yet." That implies some has, so we still won't be able to tell the difference.

C and D echo the issue I've mentioned above. If we can detect it after it's broken apart, how do we know it's recent?

In contrast, B says that all methane is exposed to sunlight. "But how does that prove it's recent." Because only recent methane would be whole and not broken apart.

I would argue that D relies on an assumption itslef and for that, I crossed it out.

"Incorrectly estiamting their own chances" dosen't have to mean they OVERESTIMATE. It could very well be they underestimated thier chances, and still won.

I don't think it's fair to just assume that incorrectly estimating your chances means you overestimate them.

This is not very well explained in the video or the little dialouge box beneith the answer choices.

I did not chose E because it dosen't make sense to balance retirbution with NOT trading with country X. The consequcnes for our interest in commiting to that action (retribution) is loosing out on some form of trade.

I can't comprehend why we're pinning retribution with NOT trading. Can someone please dumb this down for me?

I think the reason people didn't chose B was because "handling" happened before treatment, so we assumed that it would be sterile after going through the process.

But it's not like handling sugical equipment. Think of it like tankards holding the pollution. If those tankards create pollution, then it wouldn't be involved in the process to sterile the waste

The issue I'm taking with this question is the "SOME" part here. How can I rule out a possibility of birth order having an effect on personality if I can't detect all of them.

If it's true I can detect some (but they're not there) then I can't claim that there is no effect becasuse there are still some I haven't detected that can have a lasting effect.

The same is true if I negate it.

Compared to the rest, A is better, but I cannot prove it's right.

I'm sorry, but when does Minority = most? That's the whole reason I crossed out A because I thought minority means less than half

@hannahhuynh God you're wonderful, thank you.

I'm sorry, I may be confused for a stupid reason, but E dosen't make sense. How is the quoted sentence NOT a conflict of interest.

In the context of the sentence, the author is stating that a lawyer has obligations to defendent AND to the court (in equal value). How does that not represent a conflict of interest?

Yeah, I'm a bit confused. The only reason A seems right is because it's the only one talked about in the passage.

But I don't think the whole passage is answering. It seems more about why video tech is good for cultures. The Kayapo are just an example

Am I the only one who saw E and said that "something" is Global Recessions. I don't understand why J.Y replaces "something" with "predicting." That dosen't really make sense

I'm wondering what the exception here is.

Previously, when given multiple sub conclusions in a passage, we've always split the sentence in "sub conclusion" and "premise".

Why is this an exception to the rule?

@AutonomousTacticalTheory This is probobly too late, but maybe someone will see this.

Claim - Conclusion/statement. Generally won't be support or context (don't rely on that, but good indicators)

Generalization - These will refrance the general/broader subject than the stimulus. (Ex. Population vs. a few people).

Assumptions - Don't know yet, haven't come across them. But I think the excerpt won't be found in the stimulus but is needed/sufficent for it to be true.

I'm confused. B appeared to be refrancing the "however" statement. The excerpt definetely did not sound like it was offering and alternative to support a practice the argument was claiming.

That sounds a lot more like the "however" statement.

@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.

As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things

Please, can someone give me a method that does not involve using negation or "must be true" analysis.

No matter what I do, I cannot prove why something is necessary or why negating something undermines the argument.

I've gotten every single question wrong and I don't understand why an answer is right or wrong.

It honnestly feels more like this is just a "guess and go" question, because there is really no method or strategy for solving this.

#help