SO C strengthens by saying the number of medium and small ones haven't changes which support the argument's claim that tornado's occurance have remain constant and also makes possible that the increase in reporting in coming from small tornados?

I think i am peace at this point that there are certain questions on this exam i just won't be able to get correct.

I eliminated B because if they weren't in the region, couldn't they have been nearby?

Posting this here so anyone in the future can review. Fictional analogy

Argument: Gaddafi was viewed as tyrant

Modern historians: There is very little evidence to prove this and the allegations are from his political opponents.

Our job is to pick a fact that supports the historians' contention.

A: The worse answer. If there is less documentation about Gaddafi than 51% of his contemporaries, or if the information about Gaddafi, chronicles just his adult life and the ones about his contemporaries chronicles their life from birth, we still haven't helped the modern historians mount a successful challenge to the "Gaddafi was a tyrant" narrative

B. I picked this during my BR review because I thought by making it about their opinion and not the fact that he blew up a plane with his own people, we can discredit their claim. BUT the argument is in fact about their view; how they interpreted their experience. It's an entirely subjective assessment.

C. I chose this during my first round but changed my mind. I thought, "what if the allegations are true?" But they are just that. Allegations. And the stimulus doesn't warrant us to make that leap.

D. is the opposite of what we looking for.

E. Comparison to Goldimir Vutin is irrelevant

Takeaway is to ask yourself how the fact you picked in the answer choice BOLSTERS the argument. What is the claim the author wants you to strengthen B doesn't provide support for the critics' position. The best it does it weaken the traditional view. Even that, the support is still lacking, because we need reason to believe their opinion doesn't count. Our job is to select a fact that firms up the position of the critics. C does just that by reducing the claim to allegations. Allegations, until proven are just allegations and nothing more. C is positing that there is no evidence to support this and also saying the view are from his enemies. Adding the fact that, they are just 'allegation' labels that were throw around to other leaders, supports their point that there is NO actual evidence and that the view is from political opponents.

If the story of the multiverse is correct the hero will be the lucky goes that everything just worked out in their favor.

A: Universe weren't working in teams. PACK IT UP!

B: Pause

C: Universe didn't have multiple trial runs, nor she did build resilience after many failed attempts to accommodate life. NO!

D. Only Miss Universe succeeded so this is definitely wrong

E:TTT: Too many assumptions. Too much info. Too much outside information. The universe didn't possess a manual or have conditions to condition its resistance.

B is close and B wins. We got lucky basically lol

By now, we know the author hasn't been successful in challenging the multiverse theory so any strong characterization of that sentiment is wrong. The author isn't also positioned as some multiverse activist; they literally question the "conventional" approaching to testing so any characterization of that sentiment is also wrong. I won't go for ambivalence because the passage demonstrates the author's engagement.

A & B, we can't say the author was dismissive when an attempt was made to test the theory, and the last paragraph prove we simply cannot justify skepticism for an answer choice. Like the author, "I don't necessarily think so."

C is doing what it needs to do. The author here mentions how scientists approach test; suggests a less restricting model. Doesn't get all the answers and concedes she doesn't have enough to challenge the theory and draws our attention to how we can answer other "puzzling questions."

We already know the author wasn't a multiverse champion so both D & E can pack it up

This was the hardest one for me lol. I took the final paragraph as for all the hoopla, does it challenge the multiverse theory, NO!

A: The wording here is dangerous, me thinks. The author's argument here is what is inadequate, NOT the view the author is arguing against, because the author was not successful to demonstrate that

B: No. The questions here play a specific role. They support why the other doesn't mount a adequate challenge to the cosmologists.

C: No. it's more of a concession to me.

D: They are reasons why the author's challenge doesn't quite land-not the reason provided in this answer choice.

E. Because I read E, I'm scared because. I haven't found an answer yet, so after I read this, I go back to the answer the two questions again. I don't get what Q1 is saying but Q2 posits that we have something to look forward to. The multiverse concept that resolve other paradoxes in cosmology. I am drawn that C says something similar which is closer than E.

A future corse of experimentation isn't offered but the research has implications, which is the potential to help us answer other questions. C says that.

C is the winner.

Takeaway: I don't believe just understand the structure is enough. For the 3 minutes, be genuinely receptive to what the passage is saying. Take an interest in the subject matter; it combines confusion, arousal of curiosity, fascination, and questions. You'll have a better command of the moving parts.

Remember, the author's opinion comes through when she talks about the conventional way scientists test the hypothesis, but suggests testing multiple things at a time, cuz in the movie, while the car is running, the Sherif is trying to get a family out of a burning building with a stalker trying break into the police car, while the alarm goes off while a helicopter is hovering around, with a standby van and an ambulance that crashed into the fire truck both on their way to the scene. You just can't test one thing at a time. Knowing this, we can tell the author isn't a fan of the conventional way.

A: Irrelevant is too much. We might not get what we are looking for but we will get something. I have learned in RC passages that "irrelevant" are rarely the answer choices unless they are explicitly justified which I have yet to see. Maybe outcomes that are not conducive is more appropriate.

B: Meh. Results aren't useful, yes, but "too unfocused" is relative and hard to support.

C: No lol. For all we know the single activation of factors had wayyy more mathematical rigor more than the combination of multiple factors.

D: Yes. Yes. Yes. The process is limiting is what we can hypothesize. We don't know and can't tell or make of what would have happened if they chain of events I described using the movie analogy happened the "conventional way," thus doing "a tweak and leaving other constants unaltered" is limiting. We have a winner. I skipped straight to the next answer lol.

The cosmologists are the probability group. They are saying we appeared on the right side of the rolled dice. Picture the multitude of universes (a bunch of small circles, kind of what J.Y. illustrated). If a circle is shaded whether marginally, 10%, 20% or even 90% it means that are factors that make it IMPOSSIBLE to contain life. There exists sooooooo many that we are the lucky one that isn't shaded to any the slightest. That doesn't mean we are the only one because cosmologists are still looking for the other universes outside our own as you are reading this. Let's go to answers

A: This is too far. They didn't go as far. It's not that the impossible temperatures elsewhere to accommodate any form of life is what made us POSSIBLE. It's a probability where we just lucky or the "better" deal, which is life. They probably have their own lasts.

B: Also plays on the concept and is tricky but NO. Probability isn't really about abundance. If you are rolling a dice, the more probability makes the desired outcome even harder. That's what I took from it. They also did not argue that. There isn't support for it.

C. Oh NO! This isn't said or implied by them. No bueno!

D. ENOUGH probabilities exist that made life possible. The probability of too much carbon, not enough carbon, impossible temperatures, and all the factors that could play out played out, and enough universes existed for those conditions so that at least ONE universe, our own, wasn't affected by any of these things and had just the right conditions to accommodate life.

E. They can't prove that lol. The field of cosmology won't probably exist if they knew the answer to this.

Q2. I interpreted the phrase as "with all variables being equal." At this point, the passage was fine but Q6 has thrown me off so I'm bracing for impact.

A: Here is why this was easy to eliminate. The analogy was used to help to ease us into what the author was describing. It's not the focus or the "fictional nature." ELIMINATE

B: I like her. But I just don't like the "theoretical CHAIN" of events. But the author's' "testing" is theoretical. It's not change she has the means to alter the amount of carbon available on earth. I kept this one.

C: No. This is physics. To them, they're probably discussing their favorite ice cream flavor (Don't make that assumption lol). There just isn't enough support to claim it's for dramatic effect. The use of the analogy is for us to better understand what is being discussed.

D: This answer sounds cute but leaves a lot unanswered. How do we know the archetypes are common? What archetypes? A pattern I've built is that if answer choice is providing me more questions instead of doing its being being an answer then it's a NO.

E: Immediately. NO! "Playing the movie" here is the right amount of force that produces the right amount of carbon and the the temperate conditions just perfect for the earliest forms of life, water to form. They can't do that so it's purely theoretical where they author even suggests changing multiple variables instead of one.

POE says B is a winner.

Q6. Main point. Before I went to the answers, I first said said something like, our universe, like the movie accommodates life due to fine tuning and then I watched the explanation. While i had a better understanding of the passage, I wasn't confident in my main point. My second main point preface was, scientists accept the multiverse theory as reconciliation for the fine tuning being the source of our universe and its accommodation of life. I'm still not confident because I'm missing a lot and got lost towards the end of the passage. Now the answers:

A: This seems like an afterthought and implication of what we discussed in the passage. It was far from what I predicated in how they're be written. If I am able to predict and there are no overlaps, I will let the answer go. I let this choice go.

B: This is a small portion (it seems) the author teases in the final paragraph and doesn't capture the zigzag of what we discussed. EASY ELIMINATE.

C: This is discussed in one paragraph where the author theorizes that testing multiple facts instead of just one at a time but even with that, the author doesn't complete rule out the possibility of accommodating life. My second EASY ELIMINATE

D. I was hesitant to pick it. It's not a winning answer. Something didn't convince me. It leaves out the fine tuning concept where things exist just perfectly for life to existent and the reaction of scientists. Now if E is weaker, D wins.

E. I wish E was weaker but E fits my prediction but leaves out all the nuances that were discussed.

But I paused and realize, I still don't have a home run so i go back to my choices.

A: Upon rereading, the first half of A captures the first half of the passage, that fine tuning explains our universe. So what about the rest of the passage, cosmologists, hypothesizing that the abundance of randoms provides probability that at least one universe will accommodate life, which is us. "The more set of physical laws" mentioned in the answer choice is the second half.

Fine tuning was too prominently discussed to not be part of the main point. A group of scientists hypothesized the multiverse theory, which resolves the paradox. We happen to be the side that got life with this theory. It doesn't rule out fine theory, it just leaves the possibility open for the explanation of other physical laws. I picked A slightly more convinced and moved on.

Takeaway: Never settle on 'E' because you couldn't find the answer choice scanning 'A' through 'D' and be open to the idea that that your prediction may not match how an answer choice is written but doesn't automatically make the choice wrong because they could mean the same thing. I'm in the minority here; I didn't find the passage "fun" lol.

This is your LSAT reminder to not make assumptions and that you may not like an answer or how it sounds but your job is to find the best answer and think how LSAT writers want you to think. The information we were given is purely rhetorical.

Sharing this so the next person can see my line of reasoning. I promise I hated this question more than you.

Here is why C is justified. The stimulus tells us that this group of animals almost have no other way to counteract predation, so it automatically rules out the possibility of an activity or trait we could have in mind that we think is helping them counteract predation. That has been already ruled out.

'A' adds a fact we can't justify. I for once assumed that because they outnumber their predators, they look like one giant animal (I think I got that from an RC passage lol), which is such a reach.

Others made assumptions that if they outnumber, then they can fight predators. But this requires us to assume that preys will move in packs or that a single predator can't take on multiple preys whenever it's hungry or whatever eating cycle they have.

What makes 'A' wrong, is that it requires leaps.

You might also think 'C' requires a leap; but it doesn't. The author in the stimulus is arguing from a human perspective. If you're asking how, then it's because we assume all stimulus' are unless it's explicitly making the case it's not. The author is obviously not arguing on behalf of predators/prey so if they (writers of the question) see black-and-white coloration as something that is not a protection gear, predators mights not see it the same way. We don't have to know what they see it at. It leaves room for a lot, and the fact that predators don't see black-n-white coloration as a waving "bite me" invitation, is enough to answer they question we are trying to answer, which is, "why is that animals with black-n-white coloration, are able to survive when we know they outside camoflague, they have no means to?"

Takeaway: the fact we pick in the answer choice has to answer our questions without leaps. More information is cute, but we need to answer the puzzling question the author is presenting. S/O to my Nov 5 warriors

Need a tutor to help answer this:

C is just a repeat of information in the stimulus. If snow-covered earth provides a more cooling effect than snow-uncovered earth, obviously the presence of sun doesn't stand a chance and will definitely warm the atmosphere. Unless we're accepting that it isn't a binary choice between presence of snow and no presence of snow.

This is like using opposite information to shore up the argument.

Unless we're saying that C provides information that rules out another factor that can be argued would make such contribution but it's obvious if the author has already said snow-in will do the job better than snow-out and we can all clearly tell that sunlight is definitely snow-out

I'm struggling for D to make sense. Following D, the new product should not be packaged in a way that creates the impression that it's old?

Are B & E wrong because we can't guarantee that all the time or they're too broad?

My preface for this question for that, we need something that shows the audience were thrown off and felt an abrupt interruption in the story. Or that by the end of it, they were raving about everything else but the story being told. Jokes on me lol.

What are we weakening?

Bordwell's claim that the audience are aware of the conventions to the film and are cued to expect certain changes (he's kind of contradicting himself here but i care about getting this choice correct) and thus accept as "realistic."

a. This seemed fine

b. This also seemed fine.

c. This is a Q21 LR type of answer. For Bordwell to claim those kind of movies have "trained" a certain type of viewer but then first time viewers and regular viewers still have the same reaction shows his claim doesn't make sense. If his regulars are aware of the conventions and have come to accept the characteristics as "real," then we'd expect first time viewers to have a different reaction, but if both groups have the same reaction, and are thus surprised or confused, then his contention doesn't hold.

d. A few assumptions, and this choice supports his claim.

e. Similarities in the eras throws us off, because the author focuses on analyzing a specific era. We don't know how they feel about pre 1930

Now back to why A and B is wrong:

A shows the film elicited a positive reaction. Here the film can still evoke a positive reaction and still depict a complete 180 from what they were expecting.

This was attractive but the quote is Boardwell's response to musicals not following the categorization he establishes. He defends it by claiming that it's a different kind of real the audience have come to expect and accept. They go for the musicals.

I was tripped off by the passage by making a mistake during my first real because i ascribed the penultimate sentence in paragraph one to Boardwell, instead of the author, which shifted my understanding a bit, but I got it.

Takeaway: trying to see if you can weaken the answer choice you picked from information in the passage. If you can, chances are there is a better choice.

I'm still slightly lost about Q9. It seems the author and Broadwell have differing conceptions about what is "realistic."

In the penultimate sentence of paragraph 1, Broadwell considered it to be stories as closer to real life as possible. I got that. "The technical elements........" is the author explaining Bordwell's definition. Unless I'm missing something

But when the author explains the and highlights the anomalies, the author, referring to Berkley's film mentions that the song "does not contribute to the story Berkley tells in between musical numbers."

From this I inferred to that, the technical elements, thus the music, does not detract from the story but contributes to it.

Now that I am writing it out, it doesn't make sense for two reasons:

1. The technical elements refer to camera movement, lighting, editing, and sound, not necessarily the musical performance. The musical performance could be part of the story.

2. The author was highlighting the inconsistency in Bordwell's categorization, thus undermining his generalization and classification of the "classical era of Hollywood filmmaking" not necessarily establishing their own definition of what is "realistic."

I fell for A because it read like a safe answer and wasn't really saying anything extreme. But if the quality allows the structure (whatever that means) to convey the story and the story isn't close to our life and discusses a pandemic that will take over the world 90 years in the future, this answer fails because it's not close to life in 1930.

Is C wrong because the answer fails if the story is not close to real life?

To justify B, are we including how the author talks about how Bordwell uses the definition? If so I can live with that.

I guess the takeaway here is to try to see if it's possible to weaken the answer choice.

It's C wrong because the stimulus has taken into account the stated fact in C; and in fact, we can say, it's what accounts for the different times stipulated?

Our job is basically to say the conclusion the author is adding isn't doing what it needs to do. A maintains the fact but comes up with completely new information that discredits the connection that author is making.

Counting down for this exam to be over. Chill lol

If you have the attention span of a potato, you basically did the same thing I did—assumed the trampling done on most of the shrubs in the forest but it's far from the truth.

Basically the key here is that they don't trample on most of the shrubs necessary for MB's survival. They trample most of the tiny proportion that fall on the ground, which is better than the woodcutters, who do nuclear damage

My takeaway, go through the answers choices again, if you are not convinced of what you pick. Don't fall for the trap of settling with an answer you are not entirely convinced for because you think you don't find the other answers compelling. It's never true.

Read your stimulus closely lol.

The explanation under B next to the light bulb is not doing what it needs to do:

"we don't know if they believe...." But we also don't know that they don't know. Both are assumptions either way so why doesn't it fill the gap? The point of RRE is to provide information that makes two scenarios plausible. Both groups believing they have taken a sleep-promoting drug should answer for results. Where a see a red flag, not even red; yellow, is that, in preventing most episodes of insomnia, it doesn't explain why it returns even before the study ended.

Somebody chime in pls

SO basically E just bolsters the conclusion by saying the fact the color transfer is more difficult than any other trait means the pesticides will be piece of cake? I hate this test

I don't know what D is doing but I also don't know how to rule her out. My initial thought was that this was an apples vs oranges type of argument and nearly not comparable. We weaken by justifying why insurance makes more sense than the lottery, referring to their average outs vs purchase price.

I see what E is doing. You won't die if you lose the Powerball but you could die if you don't have insurance in certain circumstances.

Whereas E says they insurance has a better justification despite the cost, D just says they're in the same boat which isn't offering much, and now that I typed it out it's making sense to my head.

Please add any tips below.

My take away: to weaken is to show why the claim the author is making is bad or a bad idea. Anything to make it bad.

Something not right about the way y'all are explaining B or I'm just not getting it.

If they sold 10 high-end computers, each costing $1000 and, they will make $1300 in profit.

If they sold 10 low-end models (let's pick an average of $400). At 25% profit, they would make $1000.

How then do you justify ruling out B?

Here to add to popular opinion that E is as wrong as it gets. Yes, there is a cooling effect when it's windy. But what if there it's windy but the wind is blowing in a parallel direction????

For Question 18.

J.Y. easily rules out E when solving passage A, but the discussion of institutional legitimacy implies that the lack of condor can be noticeable. If not, why will institutional legitimacy be of concern?

To play devil's advocate in J.Y.'s explanation for ruling out A, couldn't the trucking company be one party and the trucks being another party?