I had the same feeling with you. I've been so mad at the new UI since Junea and I was trying so hard to let myself be comfortable with it. However, aftering seeing the new hightlight UI, I am totally f-ed up. I left my feedback on LSAC website, I was even trying to message to the Cheif of Operation of LSAC (the genuine who approved this update) on Linkedin but I didn't, cuz I told myself being a lawyer needs to manage anger. But still, I wanna scream on the new UI. It has made my life harder.

@jt8618 I did! Still feel so mad!

Who's the governing authority of LSAC? Can we report it to somewhere??? Horrible ideas!

Can "one's ability to survive" be understood as a new concept in the concluson (well even this is not a conclusion)? Since there's a missing link between "fewer and fewer belief" and "one's ability to survive", so the problem is the argument assumed there's a link between the two without a valid reason?

Seriously when are you planning to bring it back? I am really suffering with the new format, it disturbed my study plan. Please bring it back ASAP. There's no even A/B test, or even a survey for this update, I just don't understand how this happend. Feel like this is not a user-friendly product anymore.

Change it back please. I need to adjust drill time based on different question tag. This change doesn't really make sense!

there's an implied condition: unjustifiable anger, jealousy, or resentment are emotions that are not always under one's control, then just use the method of domain;

unjustifiable anger, jealousy, or resentment-->out of control

Domain: certain emotions out of control

conclusion:

certain emotions out of control --> /(blameworthy)

support:

responsible--> /(certain emotions out of control )

contrapostive support:

certain emotions out of control-->/(responsible)

Missing condition:

/(responsible) --> /(blameworthy)

is eauql to: blameworthy--> responsible

I agree!

0/3 on first try and 3/3 on blind review. What's wrong with myself :(

If the second "to" is replaced by "do", the sentence will be like "Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than do most other cultivars of corn.". Then the meaning would change totally.

I know you didn't see a unicorn since it is mythical! (I doubt myself when I saw that sentence). Even though it's the national animal of Scotland.

I got the answer right but I struggled for 5 mins to figure out how the premise supports the argument-- if it does support, it means that the opponents' political agendas are understood by large people, therefore they are not muddled and incomprehensible, then the criticism is insincere. However, how we know if their political agendas are understood by people or not? I asked ChatGPT and it says there's a hidden assumption that "Politicians would not criticize an opponent unless they believed the opponent’s agenda had some real chance of mobilizing people.". It lights me up, but I am thinking, I won't be able to build a logical system to think of this hidden assumption. For some questions (like this one which the conclusion is easy to identify and structure of argument is clear), I won't have to spend too much time digging the logics.