I got this right, but I wasn't fully confident selecting it in the end. I just felt most drawn to it out of all the other choices.

I was down between (d) and (e), and got confused with the double "not"'s in the choices!!!

how is the part of "intended purpose" relevant in (c) choice? thats the main reason I didn't selected it!

I read the question prompt before the video, and instinctively picked (A) which is correct, but what was throwing me off at first was the word "only" in the choice. However, the more I read the other choices i realized (A) makes the most sense!

Took me longer, but I did POE for this one. My thinking pattern: At first I was tied between (b) and (d), but decided (b) in the end, because in the stimulus it mentions "other symptoms" other than hiccups. So just because some people didn't have hiccups as a symptom, I realized it wouldn't weaken the argument.

So after getting the question right, I went back to see how I did it and got a little confused and I was like how did I get this right, again? But I think I remember. So how

I figured this out (personally) the first time is that the hypothesis has those two parts/conditions: plants availability determine the ecosystem, and predators have little impact. The question asks us to find out what goes AGAINST this theory. So, I read the choices to see whether they supported that hypothesis in any way, even partially; if they did, I striked it off - we don't want our answer to support it.

I knew it was (b) at first because it says the plants were reduced (less available), yet the herbivores were fine, in fact, they increased, so this goes directly against the hypothesis. THEN, on top of that, the eliminated predators is what increased the herbivores population - indicating that predators DO have impact on the ecosystem, in this example - BOOM, it must be the correct choice then (and it was).

I was so overly confident with (a) at first, I didn't read (e) entirely, but got it on the blind review. I get why it's (e) because it also shows a control group to support the hypothesis. I also think I got tripped up by (a) because I was reading too much into the "family" part of the stimulus, so I wrongly looked for it in the choices. The question is asking about the hypothesis, so I see how (a) is kinda a trap.

If you get it right - do you guys still watch his entire analysis - or only for the ones you get wrong?

(a) made sense to me because it explains why there wasn't a change in the numbers!

I knew the first answer (a) was right but I wasted time reading though and double checking the rest of the answer choices when it feels too obvious!

Somehow I understood what it was asking and got it right, but I can't fully explain it in writing - it's like mental gymnastics

Someone else said the same thing i'm thinking, and for a lot of these questions - you look at the answer choices and think, no where in the question does it answer that or say anything about that - then you know you can eliminate it.

When he revealed the first three answer choices and why they were wrong - I knew they were wrong, but off the assumption that the 'parent' didn't agree, and (a), (c), (e), all agree with the idea. However, it seems he sometime uses different strategies than me when eliminating wrong answer choices.

I wish they gave us the full question and answers first - before the breakdown.

missed #4 - still trying to figure out! - originally I chose b) trying to figure out why it's e)

@CharlesDorset so even though the writing section isn't scored, Law schools still take it into consideration when reviewing your application?