Honestly Im very proud I got this correct after getting shredded on the last few.

What helped me was looking at my options and just asking myself, if I were to negate this answer would it make the conclusion impossible? This is something that JY covered in earlier videos but I didn't apply that until now, our intuition just isn't enough sometimes.

Lets be honest, if you're studying for the LSAT. You're not good at basketball ;)

Yeah its ridiculous that this isn't a feature already given the cost of this program.

I have switched to fully reading the lessons now because when he writes out examples on the white board the writing is very difficult to read and reference back to when he connects further points back to the earlier ones.

I got it on the BR, not sure if thats a good thing or negligent since I missed the first attempt.

Then we get questions like number 5 where Kim has voiced absolutely no opinion on the use of research and technology to protect habitats.

I wonder if they are reading feedback? So many previous lesson videos have the same criticism about going straight to the right answer before showing all answer choices.

It is not uncommon for a politician to do x.

A politician criticizing = x.

The stim doesn't give an ultimate as it says "not uncommon" which is not "always" but the answer choice reflects it as always being the case. How is that correct?

That second example about people being more objective is incredibly confusing. How could both things be objective if one is considered less objective than the other?