@LawyeRell took it in april, unfortunately it's not :((

that article already talks about what changed from before August 2024 to then after August 2024. It talks about how the essay used to be simpler than it is now and how people had less time than we do now. It's not outdated, the article talks about the current way we're supposed to write the essay with one question given and various perspectives supplied for us to use when arguing our side.

@HunterThoss we up boss!!

Thank you!! :')

I am extremely sorry for your loss!! I don't really have sound advice on how to get back on the consistent studying schedule but you went through such a hard time so go easy on yourself. Take it slow maybe for a few days, slowly ease back into your old habits. Do an hour today, an hour and a half tomorrow, and just gradually increase it. Think of how much this means to you and also your mom. Wishing you the best of luck, hang in there.

How is E not attacking a premise? we are being told that "over half of people who have parachuted only once report being extremely frightened by the experience" and then E comes and says sike that's actually not the case. Most people who have parachuted many times didn't find it frightening initially (meaning the first time they tried it). Am I crazy?

@treigysmartynas592 wait where exactly did they clear it up? I didn't catch on to that while reading, pity :(

I'm not convinced that Binh wasn't denying Kira's conclusion. He explicitly says "merely drawing a profit in no way implies that buying one of its policies is unwise" which directly contradicts Kira's conclusion of "it would be unwise to buy that insurance policy".

This is so tiring.

The light bulb explanation for C has a wrongly spelled word. "Obestity" instead of obesity. It's insignificant, but still wanted to share it just in case someone wants to fix it.

A is the right answer because we are told at the beginning that each student was given a different condition by the 1st attending physician. Since they weren't given any leading questions during the exam a week later, and they just asked about the medical condition the physician mentioned to them the week before, there is no way that they tested the same condition as the others on the 2nd week.

We are explicitly told they all were given different medical conditions and then were given nothing else the 2nd week, so it's most strongly supported that on the 2nd occasion/week, none of the students could test the same medical condition.

I check the written ones first in case it's a really obvious explanation that instantly makes me go "ahhh how did I miss this?!" But if it doesn't give me a light bulb moment (no pun intended), that's when I watch the videos for a more detailed explanation. So both are equally helpful.

The way he just says OMG and then abruptly ends the recording after reading answer choice E cracked me up haha

Idk if my thought process is correct but I initially picked E and what made me realize it's wrong is that wealthier doesn't mean substantially wealthier than they were 30 years ago. It could be that they were earning 40k 30 years ago, and now they earn 45k, which is wealthier.

BUT only a 5k increase doesn't mean that these people now have enough/more money to go on vacations. For all we know, that extra money could be going towards their sick cat's vet bills or monthly payments on that 2nd car that they really needed.

@kwangleestuff519 omg thank you for this amazing explanation!!

Bruh. How was I supposed to know that "ignoble" meant unflattering!?

@MacyHolcomb realest comment ever!!

@QAAA that's great news!! thank you :)

wait are we allowed to bring ear plugs to the testing center??

Thank you for this post!!

I don't think I'll ever understand this question. Damn.

Well, took me a while to understand what was happening so I chose B. But it's very wrong because the wholesale prices of the beef and bread being different doesn't explain how bread only experienced a 10-15% increase whereas the beef experienced a 100% increase A.K.A a doubling of the price. Even if bread was 2$ as a wholesale price and beef was 20$, their baseline price being those doesn't explain the aforementioned difference between the bread cost rising slightly and the beef rising majorly.

C makes sense because it's saying that the majority of the production costs of bread come from its marketing and labor (not labor as in ingredient costs, but like factory worker costs), whereas the production cost of the beef is coming mostly from the grain-fed diet of the cattle. Since the price of grain was rising, and let's say 90% of the production costs of the beef production consist of the grain-fed diet, well then of course they're gonna see a high rise in production costs because grain, which is like 90% of their production costs, has risen in price.

This was my thought process, it's probably not perfect. But if it prevents anyone from wasting 20+ minutes trying to make sense of this question, then why not share it lol.

@francesmcg so glad I'm not alone because this entire section made me rethink my career path

I'm so DONE with these kinds of questions. I've been staring at my computer for 5+ minutes and the stimulus still makes no sense, and don't even get me started on the answer choices.

Honestly, I knew deep down in my heart that E was gonna be the right answer, but I so badly wanted to pick D. So I did it. No regrets, just chillin. LSAC can have this one

My thought process:

A. we are merely given a statistic, nothing is being established. There's no additional comment about what this statistic means for the argument.

B. the stats are not in favor of increasing the number of officers, on the contrary, it's giving us a reason to doubt that idea.

C. the stats do not prove anything, the argument just cited some stats and doesn't draw any conclusive statements from those stats. It gives us a stat, and leaves us to draw meanings from it.

D. We can't say no relation because in at least one of those many instances, there has got to be at least one time that shows a need for increased police officers. It says they diverged widely, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought hey there should at least be one case where there was a relationship between number of officers and crime rate.

E. suggests is a great word to use here, and yes we can reasonably think that the stats suggest that the number of officers is not the only influence.

Overall suggestion: look at the first word of the answer choices and ask yourself, are the stats proving something? are they establishing a fact?