Ok, so before I work through this question and watch the video(s), I am going to say that I went way too fast (I was still 2+ mins over time) and had NO CLUE what was being said in the answers.

Well, 1/5 and 3/5 on the BR. I suppose I could have missed all of them, but I hate to see it. I tried to keep it in time, so I think I rushed through too quickly and didn't analyze properly, but that sucks. The positive thing is, however, that there is obviously room for improvement based on getting more in the BR, so there is hope!

I got this wrong because I went WAY too fast through it. I got too locked into photographs = worldview without trying to flesh out why. I needed to say, yes, when a photographer selects a subject and how to depict them, that is they have a bias. That bias is their worldview, however realistically it represents reality, then their biased photographs are interpretations of reality. Boiled down, I figured if Expressing a Worldview (EWV) then Photographs are Interpretations of Reality (PIR).

I figured that A focuses too much on "realistically" where we are told in the premise that there is room for less realism.

C is a classic "all", I immediately distrust anything that says "all". What about videos? What about paintings? We don't know about those. We don't have enough here to establish a universal claim.

D is like C, I don't like "any", but if we look at it, it's not the contrapositive of the above. D says, "If IR then EWV". Never mind that "Any" could reasonably include paintings or videos.

E We know this from the premise already. It doesn't tell us anything about interpreting reality.

That would leave B. Using that I got from the Premise and Conclusion, I got "If EWV then PIR". B says, "If EWV then IR". I think how vague it seems is where I tripped up and why I selected A.

Edit: After watching JY's explanation, I am relieved that I was thinking the same way that he does when he goes through these things (in most cases, his view is much more refined and pointed than mine).

@StefanieO I am in the same boat. Good luck mate!

Just like my first two LSATs, time is going to kill me... I got it right, but man, I went 2.5 mins over time...

@DurodoluwaAina I see it everywhere now that I have become hyper-sensitive to it.

SPOILER:

B is inviting you to fall into the trap of assuming that the claim "no headache pill stops pain more quickly" is an absolute. I looked at is as a piece of advertising fluff. What we know about the comparison of Danaxil and other medications is that it will relieve Evelyn's headache at least as quickly as Janes. It might be faster, it might be at the same time. We don't know enough. That is my reasoning, anyway.

Minor thing I think, but I think "effectiveness" is the Direct Object (DO). "[A]gainst new, resistant" is a prepositional phrase modifying "strains", and "of bacteria" would be the prepositional phrase also modifying strains. "bacteria" would be the object of the preposition "of". So, we should be comparing against effectiveness, not bacteria. I.e., the simplified sentence would be (removing early modifiers):

Herbs (sub.)

are (linking verb)

much more likely to retain their effectiveness (subject compliment)

to retain their effectiveness (infinitive phrase)

effectiveness (DO)

That is how I found the comparison. I know there is stuff about predicate adjectives, but my memory is very shaky on how those work. Anyway, I just kept sitting on that while watching the video and when "effectiveness against bacteria" came up, it got me thinking and then fixated.

After a hiatus, I got a 4/5 first go, but didnt BR. I am still over time too, but I am a little faster than I used to be when I was trying this some time ago.

There is one little thing that I noticed with things like learning other subjects to help prepare for the test. My bachelor's degree is in archaeology. I tend to get overconfident when I encounter anthropology and archaeology question on the test, and I would get the right if I would simply SLOW DOWN (as ironic as that is to say on a test like the LSAT). But I think that knowing I am overconfident and that I need to slow down is different from simply being slow, if that makes sense.

5458 on my third attempt, had to get the hang of it first!

Got it right, but man, it took me forever to get there, 8 mins. Sure, I haven't actually sat down and studied in months (a bad habit I have, but I also work paving highways so I am exhausted most days), I also realized that I cannot be in a room with a TV blaring and studying these. I had to constantly stop and reread because Phineas and Ferb were screaming at me facepalm.

Much better this time around

I did swimmingly on the previous sections, these sections, however, have absolutely been kicking me, I got a lot better at the end of this exercise, and I found that the best way to cover myself is to write down every referent. I found that I rarely mixed up modifiers and referents. But I also think it would help me greatly to write these out.

@SYM I have it as "fail to kill" because I see the whole thing as the verb. But technically "fail is the (finite) verb. "To kill" is the infinitive modifier for fail.

@jzimo02 Jim provided a solid explanation of what was wrong with B, and the video explanation of why B is wrong is very good as well. I had initially selected B because I liked it more than E (I narrowed it down to B and E), E seemed like it was pulling too much from what I considered context. Thankfully, I caught it in the Blind Review and fixed it. But even if the explanation about cost isn't great or convincing, we can look at it another way.

B says "Protecting the habitat of wild animals so that we can utilize these animals as a food source is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals."

The passage is talking about Bison. There are more animals on the prairie than just bison, there are also prairie dogs. The stimulus made no mention of using prairie dogs (which are wild animals) as a food source. It overgeneralizes and that is why it is a poor choice, not to mention we know nothing about what is more or less cost effective.

Hope that helps!

Edit: changed "groundhogs" to "prairie dogs" x2.

To the last point that was made, I wish I had that advice sooner, or rather, I wish I would have taken it more seriously. In the old curriculum I focused WAY TOO MUCH on trying to understand weakening questions on the Logical Reasoning (LR) sections. I spent so much time on trying to understand them that I severely hurt my LSAT score earlier this year. A majority of my LR stuff I understood, and I was actually significantly better at strengthening questions than weakening questions (despite how similar they really are). Do not make my mistake. It is OK to not grasp something 100% when going through the lessons, that's what drills are for, and as was said, flag them and return to them later.

I love the use (and modification) of the classic Socrates Syllogism.

@AwkwardDecentDefinition Think of it this way, your selected conclusion is" "There has been a surge in obesity rates". Why should we believe this? "Nutritionists have noticed that since the fast food boom of the 1980s". To me, this (the italics) is a dependent clause and needs something else to make it make sense. "Nutritionists have noticed that there has been a surge in obesity rates" is the completion of this thought. OK, what does that mean? We are left with the phrase, "since the fast food boom of the 1980s". OK? Since this time... did the stock market crash? Did a tree spontaneously combust? It does not make sense on its own. My English teacher taught me to ask questions like that when looking at a phrase like this. If your question is a complete thought like, "Nutritionists have noticed that there has been a surge in obesity rates", then you have an independent clause. In other words, the "since" here is acting as something else. I have noticed that 9/10 times, if not 10/10 times, premises make a complete thought. This all being said, we can look at what you selected as P2. "Consequently, almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits." Why should be believe this statement? Because "[N]utritionsists have noticed that since the fast food boom of the 1980s...". You are correct to point out that we should not over rely on indicator words, but you zeroed in on the wrong indicator. "Since" in this case is acting in a different capacity.

Another way to look at this is to look at it as you will later on in the course (I am revisiting everything because I switched from the old course to the new one and had an issue with transferring my stuff over I guess, its fine, revisiting this has been super informative, I digress) is to look at through the lens of Phenomenon/Hypothesis.

Phenomenon (P): "Nutritionists have noticed that since the 1980s there has been a surge in obesity rates".

Hypothesis (C): "Consequently, almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits."

Obviously, not everything will be in a phenomenon/hypothesis format, i.e., Question 1.

TL;DR: You parsed the first sentence incorrectly, "since" is not being used as a premise indicator here and you, very likely, overthought what the question was.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope that it helps!

@Derekt19 There are occasions where small assumptions are allowed and even necessary. This one is more to illustrate the idea of reasonability in arguments, I think.

I uttered a string of expletives quite suddenly. The coffee table is moved nearly a foot from its original position. Therefore, I kicked the coffee table.

@LusYed As someone who has already gone through a good chunk of the old curriculum, I can tell you, for a fact, that you will be fine. I studied philosophy in undergrad so I already had an idea of what certain indicators were. This one was telegraphed well. "Therefore" is a pretty reliable conclusion indicator. This is all a game and I think of it like Dark Souls (for any fellow fans out there). The more you learn the telegraphs for the NPCs, the easier the game will be. Therefore, the more you learn which words indicate what, the easier it will become! ;) Hope this helps!

Maybe I missed it, but if I were to "Ask a Tutor", is there an additional cost associated with that?

@JustinPlummer5100 Best of luck! You got this!

I used to do that, and I still have the urge to do it, however, I have found that I really understand the reasoning behind answer selections a lot more now because I DIDN'T check after every question, I only did it when I was locked in, and when I was locked in on my BR. My only issue going forward is my timing, which I am sure will get faster with practice. That all being said, that is the method of study that has worked for me so far, it may not be the best for you, but I would try avoiding it and seeing if it work!