Most questions are arguments in some form or another. If there are premises that support a conclusion, this is an argument, though it may be valid or invalid. 7sage has a list of conclusion indicators-if you see any of these, it's probably an argument. Sometimes you won't get an argument with MBT or MSS questions, so you'll just get a lot of causal or conditional premises and you have to complete the argument with your AC to make a valid conclusion. In general, conclusion indicator word = argument!

@FatimahCalder C says that they're never sprayed with insecticides. If it's not the case that they're never sprayed, this could mean they're sprayed once or twice with insecticide. Compared to the "excessive" spraying of pesticides currently happening for non-GE plants mentioned in the stimulus, even if they're occasionally sprayed, this is better than excessive spraying. The argument holds even when C is negated - not necessary. If we negate A, it means GE crops don't cause less harm to wildlife, so our conclusion that they would enable wildlife populations to rebound can't be true if the same amount of damage, or more, is being caused. The argument states that GE crops will help wildlife populations recover, but never explicitly says they won't harm them—this is the critical gap in the argument that A fills in.

@CharChar3 give it a minute tops and then flag and move on! You can always come back if you have extra time and sometimes it helps to look at it with fresh eyes after you've looked at a few other questions-you may have missed something the 1st time that you pick up the 2nd :)

Don't even look at the questions after you finish reading. Stop and ask yourself: "What is the author trying to get me to believe by reading this passage?" Then go to the question and find the best match. If you're still struggling with this, it helps to study the common passage styles so you can get more familiar with common passage structures and how they relate to author purposes/MPs :)

The stimulus will generally give you all the information you need without any outside information. Even if you knew nothing about smoking's effects on cancer, the fact that the two groups had different lifestyle factors could in itself resolve this discrepancy, as we know that there could be some effect, even without outside knowledge of what that would be. However, if you do have to make an assumption, it should be EXTREMELY reasonable-very common public knowledge. In most cases, though, you can reason it out and shouldn't depend on outside knowledge-some questions prey on this and the right AC is something that would seem contradictory to common knowledge but is still supported by the stimulus.

@DoriceJiang The author's claim concerns biological evolution, and A provides no proof of biological evolution; it merely shows the use of tools. Even if they were used to butcher animals, this doesn't show how those claiming that cooking was too recent for biological evolution are wrong.

@eazybreazyeeb True but none of the ACs mention the first paragraph so this doesn't apply, the theory is also discussed in the 2nd/3rd paragraphs in discussing the counterarguments/new evidence

@elw327 There is a specific system where each word has its own symbols but because the symbols aren't related to the physical characteristics of what they represent, you could exchange it for another sign not used for something else, as there are no meanings tied to the symbols other than what the creators gave them.

@aakash2003ch457 The sufficient side isn't part of the original argument's premises so it's not a sufficient assumption for the argument made, it just adds an additional sufficient condition to negate.

Honestly just lots of practice! Diagram it all out, don't try to do it in your head. There's some great 7sage skill builder exercises where they give you a bunch of conditionals to chain up, get a piece of paper and pen and do them all. For the ones you got wrong, redo them until you understand. Key tips to remember are that you can only connect a necessary condition to another condition necessary for that one, if it's sufficient it doesn't map onto the chain. For example, if A then B can link up with if B then C to be if A then C. However, if A then B and if C then B would stay 2 separate chains- if A then B and if C then B.

If armor limits growth, this would mean ocean stickleback are smaller than lake stickleback. Ocean stickleback have armor to protect against predators, but what about lake stickleback? The argument assumes that their larger size plays the same role of predator defense as the ocean stickleback's armor, thus a larger size and lack of armor. However, if only the lake stickleback need to be larger to survive cold winters, then this provides an alternate explanation for why only the lake stickleback are larger and lack armor-it's not a predator defense but a climate defense. We have no idea what the impact is on predators, but maybe lake stickleback have some other defense mechanism that we don't know about. If lake stickleback are preyed on more often by insects than ocean stickleback, having a larger size wouldn't necessarily be a better defense as these insects are smaller than the stickleback, so we would have to make a pretty big assumption on how a larger size would help-much larger than the assumption that there's another explanation for their size :)

I definitely found it harder than 145 and 149, but also there's so much randomness in what you get on the test I would say that they're all representative of what you might see on test day, so make sure you really review what happened there. I felt like the LR sections were harder than the RC for this one, especially some of the NA/flaw questions.

Diagramming! Create a broad outline of the argument ie if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. Don't read each AC completely, read only as much as you need to prephrase what a matching argument would be. Then see if the choice matches and if it doesn't, move on. For example, if AC A says if all cats are mammals and all mammals are fluffy, stop reading there and figure out what must follow-refer back to your diagram if you get lost. If the next sentence doesn't explicitly say that all cats are fluffy, it's out, no matter what else comes next. You can also generally use this shallow dip strategy to eliminate some before you even have to map them out-maybe you have the traditional structure above but AC B says all cats are mammals or fluffy, it goes out since it has a conjunction instead of a simple condition. It feels slow at first but if you practice it enough you'll get quick enough to get through each AC super quick, especially when you end up eliminating 3 or even 4 without having to read and think through them all :)

@JenniferGamez We don't know that it's the only legitimate reason from the stimulus, but if it were the only legitimate reason then the conclusion that we shouldn't intervene would logically follow. We wouldn't meet the conditions of protecting the forest and its ecosystem-this is what forest fires do, and by extinguishing them we stop this from happening. Assuming that this is the only legitimate reason is sufficient to show that our conclusion is valid.

Honestly just give yourself a day or two off. I know it feels counterproductive but sometimes you just need a reset and to come back with a fresh perspective. Find some RC sections on topics you find interesting and practice those to remind yourself that the test can be fun and engaging. If your test scores keep getting higher you're clearly doing something right. Keep going and don't be too hard on yourself :)

@HartleyNason While both sides agree that there are implications, one side takes Darwinism to mean that evolution is determined solely by biological forces, with the consequence that any social meddling is futile. The other group disagreed, seeing Darwinism's idea of evolution at the societal level as evidence that collective action can influence this evolution, thereby implying that social intervention is worthwhile.

@annashrest02 I think the idea is that if his enemies were writing down accounts of him they probably had access to and read written accounts of other rulers, as opposed to being illiterate or unable to access these accounts. I also think he may have meant to refer to the historians challenging the claim, as they are likely to know whether the specific acts repeated in Caligula's accounts were unlikely to be repeated or are common to many tyrants and therefore plausible for him to do.

Testing stress will generally drop your score a few points, especially if you're taking it in an unfamiliar environment. I would also make sure you're taking your PTs in a similar format-same break time, same time of day, etc. The higher PT numbers are more similar to the real LSAT tests since they have more logic games style questions, so prioritize taking those!

Start slow! Do some untimed drills just to get back into the groove and maybe watch a live/recorded class or two to get into the mindset and rhythm of answering questions. I wouldn't go in totally cold to the PT since presumably you won't be taking the real test after a month off, so you want conditions to be somewhat similar. If you're finding it hard to do long chunks, break it up into 20 minute sessions throughout the day-keeps things fun and engaging but enough time to go deep on a question or two at least :)

I choose which one to watch based off of my weakest areas in my analytics! I find it helps to do in-depth review of areas I struggle with, and often other people ask questions that I didn't even realize I had or didn't understand :)

@KUROUSHFAIZ RAFATIAN practice! if you diagram enough eventually it should take 10-20 seconds max to create a diagram and find the right answer, testing every AC is super time consuming but if you can map it out and find the link all you're looking for are 2 ACs: either the direct match to your linked assumption or its contrapositive :)

@cornhole Nope! There's no way to get to "everyone" through this chain of logic, so any answers with this can be automatically eliminated. I made the mistake of picking E which also mentions everyone, so that one could be eliminated too!

Think about high level ideas! It's not about the details of the medical processes or how they work, but what the author thinks about them. Try replacing the complex idea/term with a vague catch-all term like "this condition" or "this process" and read through, just thinking about structure/relationships and author view. Answer as many questions as you can with that lens, and then any more passage specific questions you can go back and look for explanatory details :)

It's hard to know without seeing the question, but if the conclusion doesn't explicitly state that the sample applies to the general population, then it doesn't necessarily have to have a diverse well-randomized sample representative of the general population. For example, if it said something like "this shows that more of these people believe yes than no", it's referencing back to the people in the sample, which is a valid method.

Are you doing timed drills? Sometimes just the stress of the timer can make performance drop-hide it or do untimed, it feels unproductive but even if you're going slower you're working on your process so you can do it faster timed. Also maybe redo some basic mapping/lawgic drills to recement foundations. And take a break! Sometimes your brain needs to sit on something for a few days so it can make connections unconsciously. If it feels like too much to totally stop look for causal reasoning in everyday life (reading, discussions etc) and do some casual practice so you're staying fresh :)