@IvonneRosario I'm not seeing an email yet

Just changed again, I'm getting agitated by this as well, feel like the design team is totally discounting the effect of their "implement-then wait for complaints" style of interface development. Feels like they don't have a QA team at all, and that sites like 7sage are the main way they get feedback on bugs and poor design choices. Basically outsourcing their QA dev cycle onto those actively studying hard for the test at a crucial time in the cycle. If the won't change, then why not at least concentrate this process and focus it AFTER admissions cycles? New update is horrendous btw, seeing every single question at the bottom of the interface at all times is very distracting and hides answer choices on the device I study with.

It also seems like the question codes with the PT.S.Q don't readily show anymore? Had to dig through the interface to find the only area that shows it now is a tag under the notes section. Ugh.

The only joy in my life, currently, is when I answer a level 4-5 question significantly under the average correct time.

Tricky tricky, I think my best bet would have been to go for stronger causul logic eliomation between B & D. I've been finding the emphasizing nitpicking on harder stimuli when it comes down to 2 answers often ends up being wrong. Need to really more on logical concreteness over weak quantifier vagueness. "Doctors" could just be assumed to be talking about the "many doctors" I suppose.

Ugh, this came down to PoE and bot both recognizing the disqualifying nature of "several" in E), but also CATCHING that strength of the claim rested on sampling of the other 2 studies.

Basically the correct answer D) is saying "what if the other two studies only had like 5 kinds in them? That's a horrible study that can't support anything". So then the authors claim that "oh the first study was younger compared to the second" becomes erroneous because the sample sizes are unrepresentative. Maybe they ONLY sampled older kids. Ugh, this is a tricky one.

Ugh, took me a minute to reason where I went wrong, but now it's obvious. I was down to the two obvious plausible choices, but I went with my gut instead of realzing that the LANGUAGE was pivotal.

I was so torn between trying to decide if "fundamentals" or "initial edu experience" was closer to the passage, that I totally failed to realize that I should have been looking at the words "likely" and "depends" instead!

B) uses likely, this does not as closely follow the analogy setup in the passage, which uses the word "ONLY" signifying a dependence, a necessity.

E) uses DEPENDS, which matches the logical keyword "only" in the passage.

I suspect that if the testmakers had just swapped the words depends and likely between B and E, then B would obivouslt then be correct instead.

I'm having such a hard time remembering to focus on the keywords, this test is so good at drawing your attention away with distracting ambiguity. There's a reason why many, many question stems are phrased to ask you for the "BEST" answer, not the perfect answer.

@pigeon lmfao, I need a stand-up comedy routine for people studying the LSAT

@afk I think you still have to add a lot of assumptions that aren't made in the passage. This is AC is a DIECT comparasion, comparison language is very specific and particular in the LSAT. I've realized this recently because I keep getting questions wrong because of my similar confusion.

So, in this case, think this. Does the author of the passage actually directly compare mental v.s. physical? He does not. He brings up mental as an issue to be addressed, but he DOES NOT say that it is AS important as the physical aspects.

The author's point is merely that a SEGMENT of this group needs some sort of solution due to a mental aspect issue.

This direct comparative claim between mental and physical is just too out of scope for what the author is actually saying, but our brains are very tempted to try and over-infer what the author is trying to say.

I spit my coffee out when Kevin said skibidi and 6-7. These vids always seemed to me to take place outside of temporality and hearing him refer to this contempry lingo collapsed my reality briefly.

He also says "Aswhey" instead of Ashley in the end lmao.

Nice little engagement boost in the vid, didn't go unappreciated.

@k13lawwwwww but remember, you need to consider the question is MOST strongly supported. This means there is a degree of ambiguity expected especially in the more difficult questions.

It would be different if the Queestion was "Which of the following statements MUST BE TRUE"

Ugh, common problem of mine is losing track of the VIEW relevant to the question. As I go through PoE, sometimes I mix-up who's VIEW I am answering the question about, and end crossing it the correct AC because I forgot which view I was supposed to be thinking about.

If I hadnt made this error AGAIN, I would have been apparently inferred that Bettelheim thinks children can "shed undesirable qualities" which is just a weird paraphrase of "Bettelheim think its possible for kids to mature" which is kinda like a Must be true answer in LR, because Bettelheim talks about how the kids get trained by the story of hansel in gretel to mature.

If bettelheim thinks kids can mature, it MUST BE TRUE, you can INFER, that he must think kids can shed bad traits, AKA maturing.

I was so paranoid I had missing some sort of paraphrased support for "social factors" hindering acceptance that I took way too long on this question.

Damn, A straight up punishes you for skimming the answer, because it specifices a SINGLE "CENTER" it is clearly wrong. That word alone invalidates this answer.

@afk I got this wrong too just like you, and now im realizing that the menton of the OBMs 30% being allowed by gov regs is actually inferrable from the context of the entire passage.

So it starts with mentioning tight regulations, close oversight, and controlled monitored discharges in para 1.

Then when they talk specifically about the OBMs they use the language "normally used", "typical difference", and "typically 30 percent". This language, within the greater context of the passage can, upon retrospect for me, be inferred to support the statement that Gov regs allow for 30% mineral oil.

Consider if it wasn't, the passage wouldn't make any sense anymore. The passage is clearly about REGULATED compositions and procedures, but if one of the big points it mentions is NOT actually allowed by government regulations (30% mineral oil) and is yet NORMAL and TYPICAL, then the passage falls apart.

TLDR;

Passage is clearly a discussion about government regulated compositions and procedures. The final paragraph is clearly NOT saying that "normally" and "typically" these regulations are violated with 30% mineral oil. That doesnt make any sense. It's supported but you can only see that in the greater context of the passage, not just the paragraph in isolation.

This is a damn tricky question, but looking back, I agree that D is definitely supported.

@BOBLOBLAW I would instead write something like "Missed distinguishing detail" maybe

@JonathanCesari What do you mean by course work? what course work?

Got baited by E) which if you read carefully doesn't make sense. Why would anyone think Mackay infers that the POST-CRASH tulip prices were irrational? If anything, you would want to make the case Mackay could have infered the PRE-CRASH prices were irrational because they were speculative.

Also a quick ctrl-f search for "rational" would show you the topic of rationality/irrationaly is only mentioned once at the end by Garber, therefore its also an unlikely answer in this regard as well.

All in all, this bait could be avoided with more careful comprehension of what it is saying, your brain just autocorrects sit to thinking its talking about irrational speculative prices, but its not, its talking about irrational post-crash prices which has nothing to do with anything.

@jlewis2618417 Yeah goddamn, this was a tricky one. Gotta have a laser focus on subtle constrasting language. I think that's what this entire passage is more or less testing is ability to track multiple views and detect very subtle contrasts in their view through understated language.

Why is the target time for this question like 3 minutes? Is that a bug?

Time sink question that hopes to make you hesistate and overanayze dense, incorrect ACs

@Gregmjr hmmm this sounds like it could be a promising strategy to me, I might try to utilize this!

@jacobseeley861 I like this, struggled with this question in particular. Very clean intuitive diagram!

I predicted the AC for this one, but the wording of the correct AC threw me off. It sounded sort of weakly worded; indirect. "Diverting attention", "focusing on writer's actions". It sounded kind of couched to me, and not at all how I expected it to be worded, but I guess it should have been clear from the second part of the correct AC.