I don't think my brain lets me see the word "against" during tests.
I didn't find B to be necessary but most likely it is sufficient. I still don't get why after the explanation. Why I think this is because the doctors could be no more likely to remember cases where their patients' predictions were wrong, but much more likely to remember cases where their patients were right. I believe it could have been written: "patients' predictions of sudden changes in their medical status are more likely to be remembered by medical staff if such a change actually occurs". This better mirrors the last sentence of the analogy about the full moon, and highlights the importance of positive recall in messing with our memories.
For example. Lets say I have 200 patients that predicted their diagnosis. 50% got it right and 50% got it wrong (100 right, 100 wrong). And lets say that, as a doctor, I remember exactly 50% of the times my patent got it wrong (in other words, I am no more likely to remember my patients predicting their diagnosis's incorrectly than I am to forget about their occurrence). Then lets say I remember every time their predictions came true. that would leave me with 100 correct predictions remembered, 50 incorrect predictions remembered, and 50 predictions forgotten. I would still get to the analogous wrong conclusion but would be able to say that IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT "patients' predictions of sudden changes in their medical status are less likely to be remembered by medical staff if no such change actually occurs". I could negate B and the analogy would still hold, I am mistaken about reality because my perception of positive events is skewed, not my perception of negative events.
You can further prove it by taking this example: 100 patients guessed correctly, 100 patients guessed incorrectly. I remember only 25% of the times they get it wrong and only 30% of the times they get it right. I end up remembering 25 patients that got it wrong and 30 who got it right. I am still wrong, but not because of what B says, but because of the percentage of "remembered right" is higher that the percentage of "remembered wrong". I think that is the true necessary statement, that Doctors remember more right predictions than wrong predictions, just like the nursing staff at remember more busy nights on full moons than on non-full moons.
This is why I discounted B and ended up guessing because everything else seemed like it sucked too, but for more obvious reasoning. Please point out my error.
C is wrong for the second reason he says, not the first; he has the causality backwards. C says nothing about writing CAUSING social change, it says social change CAUSES changes in writing style. We do have social change, its talked about in the second paragraph with the LC's commenting on how the roles of women is changing. Still wrong, because of inevitably is way too strong of a word, but I thought I would pop in to say that the logic he uses is 100% wrong.
I totally thought that 'more fully' was in comparison to her old writing style which was more scientific as per the LCs. Still not convinced that you can't read the passage as a change that she adopted from the NW comparing Chopin's work pre NW and post the NW. C is better than the rest of the answers but I don't think it is truly implied.
This whole answer seems to pivot on the 'draws separate conclusions' line. I get why it is analogous to two religions coming to the conclusion that two contradicting gods are real (for example, Zeus and Jesus). It is just so tricky because everything else in this passage is talking about the different kinds of evidence that the philosophers think is valid, not the conclusions they are drawing. It kinda leads me to believe that the analogy of different religions is kinda bad to explain this debate. I get why the question is a 75% 180 question.
These sections are very helpful
Today I learned that a millennia is 1000 years. I thought it was a lot longer than that
Not seeing how B is wrong. He said in the video that rocks striking earth is not talked about anywhere else, that is wrong, it is in paragraph three. He does address this in the written section, he says “But at no point in the passage does the author imply any belief that there is a lack of Earth-based evidence.” I quibble with the fact that the author doesn’t imply this; he may not say it, but I think he implies it.
The passage’s last sentence says, “However, to determine the pervasiveness of the LHB, scientists will need to locate many more such rocks and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. What are the “such rocks” they are referring to? I believe the most reasonable assumption is the only rock talked about; a rock found on Earth from Mars. If they need to find many more, that means they lack required amount to prove something or lack evidence.
You could counter and say that the idea they are talking about with the phrase “such rocks” is the more general idea of rocks found on one planet that originated on another. Not necessarily those found on Earth, but a Venus rock found on Mars for example. I think this is a bit of an unwarranted stretch, because of the next part of the last sentence, “and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. ‘perhaps’ is doing a lot of work for my argument in this sentence. It means that scientists wouldn’t necessarily have to obtain those surface samples to prove the pervasiveness of the LHB. How would you collect rocks on Mars that came from Venus without surface samples? You could say that a surface sample is something different than a rock sample, but what reason do we have to split that hair? Nothing I can find from the article. If we need more ‘such rocks’ but don’t necessarily need rocks from other planets, the only rocks we are left with are rocks found on Earth.
So, if we don’t need evidence from other planets surfaces but it is necessary for us to have evidence of many more ‘such rocks’ (and those such rocks are the ones found on earth) to find out the pervasiveness of LHB we get in lawgic: determine pervasiveness of LHB -> locating many more such rocks. We know they haven’t located many more rocks or else the author wouldn’t have brought it up our lack of ‘such rocks’ so contrapose to: we have not located many more such rocks -> we cannot determine the pervasiveness of LHB.
Just for reference, he used over a minute more time on the first paragraph than is recommended for the whole passage.
Back to being bad at RC. I learned that if i take 15-20 minutes to read a passage I will understand the passage. This section sucked
I like how all the dudes are like, "this is a huge mystery!! how will we ever figure out why the people who logged this section (who are likely still alive) didn't log this?" No one will ever figure it out because no one can speak Portuguese or Spanish to ask the people who did it
I feel like this one hinges mostly on us missing the forest for the trees. The most important line IMO is that last one "all that MOST people need". This is a weak claim. The conclusion is about MOST people, more than 50%. If an answer choice talks about outliers or cases that are not the negation of 50% (0-49.9%) then they are automatically wrong.
A (My AC) does not address this because even if there are those other conditions, it doesn't mean that those conditions are something that effects over 50% of those that go to therapy. It might just effect one or two people. So it doesn't negate their weak claim.
C lets take what it says to be true 'takes for granted that NO ONE suffers' from more than one illness. That just means there could be one or two people who do, this wouldn't skew our recommendation for most. Even if we rearrange the question to say that all the people in the study only had one illness, you would still have to have the answer say something like 'takes for granted that MOST suffer'. So its double wrong
D Again, this is a 'some' claim about therapies that are ineffective, we need a claim that refutes a most. We don't know about the type of therapy used, so we have to assume it is a common one because of the principle of charity.
E This one at least kinda address the population and hints at a most claim, but we have no reason to the study was unrepresentative of 'Most' people. If it were, we would have gotten that specifically called out in the stimulus.
B Address the "most" claim, it really is the only one to do this.
I think I could have gotten this one if I had just focused on understanding of 'Most' and how the answers really didn't address that. I don't think I would have broken down B to understand exactly what it meant or why it was right in the time allotted, but this method would have gotten me to at least find the wrong answers.
This seems wrong, not because any of the other answers are better, but because this feels like it is supported by vibes rather than logic. Predators could just as easily be killing baby birds or malnourished birds, or one specific species of extra tasty bird, which would, on average of the category of "birds", have smaller spleens. The trait of smallness of spleen could have many other causes separate from sickness (such as age, nutrition level, or species of bird) and sense we don't have enough information to know. D is, at most, .00001% supported. Maybe I've just been doing too many difficult questions, D feels like it would be a trap answer choice on a harder difficulty MSS question.
I'm still not sure what the main point of this passage is, and I got the MP question right. I would honestly say the MP of this passage is the author hasn't finished writing it yet, and the author needs to learn how to communicate. This honestly sounds like someone who copy pasted from 12 different scientific articles without connecting any of the ideas.
I still hate that D is worded as strongly as it is, but I think the key thing that it turns on is the second paragraph Gilliam's PARTICIPATION in the color field movement. If it wasn't for that word participation we would have no idea that he even knew what the color field style was. It could have been made up well after his death. I still think it could have been and I still think this is kinda a "best of bad" answer choice.
This is one where vibes is better than close reading. The vibe gets you B, close reading makes it way more confusing. The article specifically says that the dirt that was transferred was missing a fungi. Which means it is lacking fungi. J.Y. does a bad job explaining this. No where in the article does it say that this soil was "robust" with fungi or anything else productive. It says "... soil from nearby land that had been taken out of production 20 years earlier was scattered to see what effect introducing nematodes, fungi, and other beneficial microorganisms associated with later stages of natural soil development might have on the process of native plant repopulation." Introducing something that has more of a thing to an area that lacks that thing does not mean that the thing being introduced is "robust" in the area it is being introduced from. Or in other words, just because the soil being introduced has more fungi, nematodes, and other beneficial microorganisms, does not mean it has enough, it could still lack them.
D is wrong not because of Fungi, we know it was missing fungi it is specifically stated: "... while, for example, beneficial mycorrhiza—fungi that live symbiotically on plant roots and strengthen them against the effects of disease organisms—are lacking." missing a fungi means it lacks fungi. D is wrong because of the 'beneficial organisms' part, we have no evidence to support that claim, we only have evidence to support it was missing a fungi.
Is this the proper way to translate this conditional?
Paul must enroll in Econ 101 or Poly Sci 101, but not both.
Translation:
Econ 101 <-> /Poly Sci 101
Poly Sci 101 <-> /Econ 101
My understanding is that this is a bi conditional because it combines group 3 (or) and group 4 (not both), so we would know what Paul does in regards to both classes based on his enrollment or non-enrollment in either class.
My tried and true method of identifying the gap and then looking for the two words that bridge that gap in the answer choices failed me on this one. I identified the gap between a political system aiming to do something and a political system doing something. A free market political system might aim for limited government but not produce it, but an authoritarian system might aim for limited government but create a large bureaucracy out of a need to maintain power. This question was one of the ones where we actually needed to plug in the words to see if it fit. None of the other answers had those words which made me way to confident. C is right because we are trying to prove Gandalf wrong. If one totalitarian system aims at ending violence and all totalitarian systems are illegitimate, than his claim doesn't work. The middle section confused me and I forgot what the author was arguing for.
Thank you for coming to my wrong answer journal
Could the second sentence be translated as: "Some people who dislike each other treat each other with respect". This is how I translated it and it didn't seem to be punished. B was obviously MBF if you translated the rest correctly, so I just stopped reading ACs after that one. I am just wondering if "may nevertheless" could be translated as some because it is saying there is a non-zero chance.
I read "fit" as "fix"
A makes no sense if you read it that way.
C is making just as many assumptions as A. 1st is the issue of control. He says that the "industrial development" was outside their control. Why? Native people can do industrial development. For example, many Native Americans build casinos, no one made them do it. The leaving of the herds could have been 100% within their control because it took place on tribal ground (which is not the property of the USG). A assumes the tradition was unknown until the archeologist found it, it was lost to time. How is something that was once common to Native Americans but was lost to time (to the point that it took archeologists to rediscover the common practice) inside of the plaintiff's control? I have no control over the burning of the Library of Alexandria, but according to the 1991 ruling, if, hypothetically Egypt was in Alaska, and it was discovered that they use to bind all of the books out of polar bear skin, why could I not claim that the loss tradition was outside of my control? It was forgotten to time, I don't control time.
Second is time scale and how that relates to the 1991 interpretation of "living memory". Millennia is a long time I will grant, but it analogizes better onto the "living memory" requirement that the courts found "strained". No one remembers what happened a millennia ago so I would need the court case that found "living memory" to be inapplicable for me to make the case that I should be allowed to do the practice in question again. C tells me nothing about how long ago the "industrial development" took place. They are building a new strip mall across the street and I no longer see deer like I used to. If I had a tradition of making Deer jackets, would it now be outside of living memory?
AC A requires you to make the assumption that the practice involved relates to a protected animal species, I will grant. That might be enough on its face to disqualify it as an answer choice, but C is not a perfect answer by any means. This seems like one where LSAT decided that their assumption was more reasonable than yours for no perceivable reason.
I hate the way he breaks this down. Starting with being like, "yeah.. this was confusing when I read it, but if you know that this is the conclusion, this is the premise, and this is the sub conclusion, isn't it easy? Just use common reading comp processes and you two will know that it starts with the conclusion. Just know to read the thing out of order." Thanks guy
E is definitely the best answer here... but...
How does 'Besides' play into this argument?
In my regular usage of it I would say, for example: "you should wear a helmet when you ride a bike, it is against the law not to. Besides, you are far safer if you are wearing a helmet in case you get into an accident." 'Besides' would mean, "even if it was not the case that it was against the law to not wear a helmet". I think of it as a "throw away my last premise and I'm still right because..."
I took that meaning and the argument read: even if what I just said was not the case (meaning that the one impact wasn't big enough to cause all the damage), it is still not true that asteroid impact had anything to do with the extinction because the asteroid impact theory would cause the death in one or two years but we have evidence of the extinction taking longer. From this I thought the right answer would have something to do with time. I predicted something like "the death of the dinosaurs would have only taken a year or two if it were caused by asteroid impact". Which was not an answer choice.
To me, this one seemed like:
First person: I believe X was caused by Y. One piece of evidence we have to believe that Y happened was Z.
Second person: Z wasn't sufficient to cause Y. Besides (or even if Z was sufficient), Y would cause X in one or two years, but it took much longer for X to be caused. Therefore, Y can't be the reason for X.
So 2's assumption would be: Y would cause X in one or two years since he offered no evidence for that claim and the first person never said that the only piece of evidence we have for Y was Z.
IDK if that made any sense, but the word 'besides' really through me for a loop and I wanted to know if anyone has a better way of thinking of it?
I went from a 158-168 just by better understanding questions. Now (1ish month after that time) i consistently score 170-174 (last 6 or so tests). The biggest thing for me was getting better at judging which questions I know that if I spend more time on I will work out the right answer and which questions its better just to go with my gut. I usually have enough time to go back to a few LR questions so making sure I prioritize ones with conditional reasoning is important for me. That helped me get the 2-3 more right questions that brings me up to the low 170s.
I have been working on getting up to the high 170s but that might be a little too much for me unless I get my ideal test order (LR, RC, LR, Experimental) and have my types of questions be the hardest (Flaw, Parallel, or SA, not NA). I think people down play the role of luck in the difference between a 174 and a 177, that is truly 2 correct guesses vs a 164 and a 167 is 4 or more questions. I ALWAYS have some level 2 causal reasoning question that throws me for a loop because I overthink it so on those I just trust my gut and I know now not to change my first answer unless I have a REALLY good reason.
In short, work on test strategy. You are going to have unique quirks about your testing at this level that won't be because you don't know Unless is a group 3 indicator, or you don't understand the difference between SA and NA. Figure out when to trust your gut and when to know it is a dirty little liar .