I read the stimulus and immediately thought: oh so the rattlesnake molts every year.

But then I took a step back and asked, what if the molting isn't constant? What if the rattlesnake molts 2x, 3x, 4x a year? What if it the molting isn't spaced out equally but happens more times in a certain part of the year like the mating season, and happens less times in a another part of the year? So then I started to see the gap as needing to discuss something about a constant rate.

So with that, I saw that:

A) incorrect because this feeds into our intutions as I had. We just assume it's a year but that doesn't have to be the case. The argument doesn't require this at all. In fact, if this was an SA question, A would be a perfect SA. A would guarantee the conclusion to be true, but is not required.

B) the appearance of rattlesnakes is irrelevant. We're talking about molting so appearance is not on point.

C) the fact that rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than when old goes against our idea that we want it constant. If the frequency (the rate) of molting changed throughout the year, then we are going backwards from our prephrase of constant rate. If we negated this, "Rattlesnakes DO NOT molt more frequently when young then when old", we are told that "rattlesnakes molt at a costant rate". But this does not destroy the argument, it would actually flow. But don't get confused by negation test. We are trying to destroy the argument in Negation Test, not strenghten it. So, We know that C is directionally incorrect.

D) I almost chose this, but brittleness isn't relevant. Yes, D does say that "it is not correleated" which is attractive, but the subject and verb in this AC is "brittleness... is not correleated with.. rattlesnake's age". But we aren't talking about brittleness. Whether the rattle is brittle or not has no effect on the constant rate of molting.

E) E is phrased really awkwardly but I saw the pattern that made it different from the other AC. What E tells us is that "Rattlesnakes molt as often" which could be translated as "equally". So, "rattlesnackes molt equally as when food is scarce as when food is plentiful". While it's not what we might think, this AC still speaks towards our prephrase of "Constant Rate". If the molting is equal in both situations, then the rate is constant.

We could also apply negation test on E. If it were not the case that, rattlesnakes molt at equal rates when food is scarce as when food is plentiful, then this would destroy the argument.

Noticing that C is the opposite of E in BR really helped me realise how this question is tricky. When using negation test, we want to DESTROY the ARGUMENT. If the negated AC supports the argument, then it's not correct and that's how you could fall into a trap.

Great suggestion!

@MichaelWright Amazing! I will watch this and go from there!

@MichaelWright I'm assuming I start with foundations, then go onto speed?

You should join the "LR: Eliminating Trap Answers" live class. The instructors do an amazing job explaining what to do in each situation!

For D, wouldn't we need to assume that the population did increase in size? Or does that not matter since we are taking the AC to be true?

If you separate the Subject and Verb in the Conclusion from the modifiers into "social theorists ... evidently believe that...", then you'll see how the conclusion is about belief. From the premises, we see that they're not about beliefs but facts.

I've been told over and over (and in my Wrong Answer Journal through repeated mistakes) that separating the Subject and Verb makes it a lot easier to see. I often get caught up in the details and don't see the broad picture (the subject/verb). In this case, that's entirely true and I hope anyone who sees this can use this trick for the future!

@Robogf Half as in the long way or the short way?

@Lexlu Just took this PT and this question kinda tripped me up. I read the stimulus, identified as Phenomenon-Hypothesis & Correlation-Causation. Then I was like okay, if this is a study and we're gonna strengthen it, then we're either gonna make this study stronger by our ideal experiment checklist, deny an alternative cause, or some other way that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. With that I literally skimmed the AC and saw D and just went with it. I thought it was that one AC that strenghtened the study by introducing information that tells us, oh people didn't self select the groups but its been randomized. But I did like dabble the other AC and felt it could be possibly it. The wording on all of the others were tempting but I just didn't have time to stick around.

I do think that sticking to the ideal experiment stuff is good when you spot a study or phenomenon-hypothesis. I mean it might not exactly talk about the ideal experiment, but its a good way to keep your eyes on notice and prephrase something that talks about the ideal experiment.

@Pspspsps Definitely! I'm trying to do the PTs in the morning to match the real thing. Good to hear your routine!

@MichaelWright Thanks! Did you have any specific doings before PTs or the Real Thing when you were studying for the LSAT?

I look at both. I'm finding that the newer PT's are explained by different 7sage staff. Although JY's explanations are useful, the written ones give different perspective and give more detail on why ACs are correct/incorrect.

I see it this way:

Main Conclusion is mostly what the author is saying and is the author's main point. What is their objective in telling us this passage? Why did they write this. What do they think about this passage? Similar to a LR MC question, what is the author arguing?

So, any AC that just summarises the passage but doesn't talk about the author's main point isn't going to be a good answer. Like yes, the passage does tell us that summary AC. But, is that what the author was arguing the whole time? Most likely not. The author probably had some view, whether it be like the spotlight in-your-face perspective or really hidden perspective, the correct AC will probably have that perspective within it.

It really helped when I realised that RC passages are like LR stimuli, but like a much lengthened form. You can ask yourself like, "Why should I believe this" when the author makes some prescriptive/judgemental/hypothesis/etc. claim and the rest of the passage (or the premises) should help support the author's perspective. When I started noticing those patterns in both LR and RC, it was really an AHA! moment.

Try to apply the same steps you'd do to a LR MC question. Like if step 1 for LR MC is to identify premise and conclusion, in your reading of the passage, you should identify the structure of support and anything that the author claims/believes/prescribes. And if you don't know if that's what the author's believing, then ask "why should I believe this?" The rest of the passage should support.

This is what works for me, and I'm sure there's lots of other ways to go about it. Good Luck!!

When I first went through these lessons on Causal Reasoning, I totally sped by it and didn't retain much of it. I didn't really understand it. Then when I started drilling, I didn't understand why I couldn't get anything right. Now, like after 3 months, I'm back to this and wow this makes so much more sense.

@lsaty I wonder if you can break free from your POE habits. I read and reread Ellen Cassidy's The Loophole and make my own similar loopholes while reading and after reading the stimulus. These Loopholes set me on the right track to a prephrase and that has helped me A LOT to being able identify assumptions, flaws, and errors in the stimulus. Maybe you've heard this a million times but engaging with the stimulus in my head has really helped a lot. For example, I might be like "no author, that makes no sense. Your argument is stupid" or "What? But hows that even possible? What if .... something happened and that means your conclusion that gives us two options isnt possible anymore??". Having these reactions and engagements with the stimulus helps me break down what I'm reading. Also, one more thing if its a super wordy stimulus with like technical topics, I imagine a fictional character telling me this stuff. It just helps me get over that like initial confusion part where I read it and I'm like "huhhh??? What did that mean and I dont get it". I do it also because sometimes after reading a stimulus and I feel like I don't get it, I just panic and completely (I mean COMPLETELY) guess or just ignore my strategies. Then I go into BR and realise actually, the question wasn't a big deal at all.

I'm not sure if you have a WAJ, but as other LSAT-ers have commented, WAJ really does help. Writing down my thoughts on why I chose and AC and what I should do next time has helped me notice my own intuitions and own decisions I make in the timed situation. Like the panic thing, I didn't know until I started noticing the patterns in WAJ. I can't give too much advice since I haven't taken a PT in a while, but I wish you the best of luck and to hang in there. You might benefit from having a tutor who can analyze your step-to-step process. “Every problem has a solution; it may sometimes just need another perspective”!

I think B is really attractive because my immediate reaction after reading the stimulus was:

"What if the higher tuition is relevant to quality of education?"

I think B attempts to trick us into assuming that "Quality of a education is DEPENDENT (or REQUIRES) tuition charged". But, let's take a step back. The stimulus doesn't need this. Even if this was true, it wouldn't guarantee the conclusion. Interestingly, if this was a SA question, I think B could pass as a possible SA correct AC.

Let's contrast with AC A. In the stimulus, we're given this phenomenon that the applicant pool is shrinking, Then the Uni President gives us a hypothesis, "hey, one reason we think this is happening is because we charge too little prices". Then we get the premise. But our prephrase/reaction here could also be: "What if this hypothesis doesn't apply?" This is exactly what A calls out. If we check by negation test, we find that A is absolutely necessary. If negated, then the whole argument falls apart: the Uni President's hypothesis is not relevant, so we have no reason to think raising tution and fees would help increase the application pool.

I'd like to get some feedback on my approach for this question. I diagrammed this question as:

Told -> /Knows-> /Scoop

/Told

---

/Scoop

I identified this as a sufficiency necessity confusion.

Given this odd question stem, I understood it as, which AC is consistent with our rule?

I chose E which tells us /Knows, which is what our rule states.

All other AC I eliminated as below:

A) /Told - inconsistent with our rule.

B) Knows -> /Scoop - incosistent with our rule

C) Told <S> Told? - didnt make sense with the Some Quantifier

D) /Know press agent - Irrelevant. /Know should be about reporters not the press agent so this is irrelevant.

Is this an accurate way to approach this question?

@Aqsie101 Small World out there! Maybe we should just create a study group of Rockland/Westchester? We're not that far away after all!

https://coda.io/d/Reading-Comprehension-Guide_dewwvC-zXme/RC-Question-Type-Guide_suOhw30v?playModeWorkflowId=#_lujQfTax

Is this what you're looking for?

Hello! I'm over in Westchester County. I'm hoping to take the test in April, but I think its more likely to be in June though. I'm looking for an LSAT study buddy, but do let me know!

Remember that Subject -> Predicate is also another way to think about conditionals.

Peter, the large dog, is a family pet

Peter: Subject

is a family pet: Predicate

P -> FP