got this question wrong because I didn't know off the top of my head the definition for "unsubstantiated." Looked it up and question and answer made complete sense to me. I chose B at first because I thought he was questioning the data when he said that has doubts.

So I got this question wrong solely because I read the word "appeal" and instantly thought it meant something negative. I was like "what is she appealing?" instead of thinking that she is making an appeal to the principle to support it and give reason behind it. After I washed the video and heard the explanation it definitely clicked to me how this completely went over my head and instead I chose "E" for no reason because of it.

got 3/3!!! i found that at least for myself and for right now, talking out loud while engaging with the text helps a lot (obviously for now not when you take actual LSAT). I've never really done this before but explaining the argument to myself and saying my thoughts out loud helped me eliminate answers that were incorrect!

The Disney argument is the strongest because it leads you directly to the conclusion and how we got there because it only gives you one other option and it’s very direct than detailed.

The tiger example is thesecond strongest because it does give a good example but it’s broad as well as it doesn’t really define the word suitable and some people might actually be able to have a tiger and not something else. It just is too broad and I feel like if they were to make this example more detailed, it would be better.

The trashbin example is last because although it does give an example of how the cat usually does that after he eats, we’re just assuming that he knocked the bin over the bin could’ve been top because of something else. It could’ve been too heavy, or someone else may have hit it. For example, the cat could’ve literally just eaten its food somewhere else and then gotten on the counter and started licking his paw while the bin was already topped over. We can’t base the conclusion of it being his fault with a hypothesis when there is no evidence if there were to have been cat scratches or paw prints on the outside of the trashcan that’s different if the cat was licking salmon from dinner off of his paws and you saw that it was orange that would be different, but all we’re doing is assuming which is why that’s the weakest example