@ConnerKline Wow. That's nasty. This passage is written so badly. C- to its author for poor clarity.

I ruled out E because the "suggestibility hypothesis" is just a guess.

What if the percent was lower in the control group simply because fewer experienced sleep paralysis? We could test more groups of 200 and find that the number varied wildly every time.

E was simultaneously attractive, and also felt like a trap.

My mistake: I misread A and discarded it.

I basically read A was saying, "expensive techniques are expensive for society".

It's really saying, "it may be more expensive to detect the microprinted counterfeit than to produce the special ink".

Hope this helps someone!

This only makes sense to me when I consider the middle part as a bridge.

Here, the passage discusses the constitutional protection's intent to "recognize only long-standing traditional customs, not those of recent origin".

Without this context, the wording is too vague in the passage and the answer choices for me to clue in, and the court's decision to interpret "ownership of land and its resources" as simple permission for usage of the land doesn't make any sense.

Maybe that bit isn't necessary if you're sharper than I am, but that's what it takes for me to see it clearly.

@suhyahn I got lucky, huh.

I'm not comprehending your whole message, but I just looked at the question again.

Seems that, while I'm given an affect that 1st child has on 2nd child, I have no information about any affect 2nd child has on 1st child.

I think I see how my tactic is unsound.

Though it's not the correct answer, the info in the stim suggests that D is true.

If people experiencing more stress are feeling less blood flow pain, then stress is not worsening their blood flow and causing more pain. Therefore, any stress related to the blood flow issue is more likely an effect than a cause.

But I'm realizing that I have a tendency to overthink the information in the stim and answers, and in this case I let that pull my attention away from the task at hand. Basically hypnotized into solving the wrong problem.

@OmarAbuaita this is great, thank you!

@qaim2025 If you negate B, the argument can still stand.

It actually doesn't matter if the size of a tax cut is proportional to the likelihood of someone investing.

Everyone could be just as likely to invest as they were before the tax cut, only now they have more to invest.

So the investment pool increases in correspondence anyway.

@joegav1 I didn't think the argument fell apart.

I didn't think it was necessary to assume that bland and innocuous opinions were mainstream, just that airing anything not bland and innocuous could be controversial in a way that would threaten a broad viewership.

@yijiang Good way to put it. I can see how the sentence works now.

Still, I think its spiritually a run-on sentence, even if it's technically correct.

This is only a Level 5 because LSAC fumbled their job. Most people understand the flaw, but the correct answer choice is awful.

Answer B is bad because its end states that "...those two other sets have no members in common with each other".

In fact, all we know is that they may or may not have members in common.

Saying that they have none in common is an overstatement, which is a red flag.

You got me this time, LSAC.

Anyone struggling like I did, hope this helps:

Premise: Sandstrom's column caused damage.

Answer: ?

Conclusion: Thus, if Sandstrom expected damage, she should pay.

Compare how each following answer fits:

Option A

Premise: Sandstrom's column caused damage.

Answer: And one should pay if they they expected damage.

Conclusion Thus, if Sandstrom expected damage, she should pay.

Option D

Premise: Sandstrom's column caused damage.

Answer: And Sandstrom expected damage.

Conclusion Thus, if Sandstrom expected damage, she should pay.

Notice how option D adds nothing new to the problem?

Once option D establishes that Sandstrom DID expect damage, there is no point in the conclusion asking IF she expected damage. It's redundant.

In this case, I didn't consider "likely" as a qualifier, and it made no difference in my analysis.

STEM:

X so Y

/Y so /X

ANSWERS A and B didn't match. C did, and I stopped.

@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN

The wording conceals the simplicity of the question:

X or Y.

/Y, so X.

Choose expensive prize (X), or choose familiar prize (Y).

Both prizes unfamiliar (/Y), thus choose expensive (X).

Same with the answer:

Double back (X), or flee for cover (Y).

No cover (/Y), so double back (X).

There is a typo in the written explanation "Answer choice C":

The explanation doesn't match the question provided:

C: If a university class involves extensive lab work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory; otherwise, it will be conducted in a normal classroom. Thus, if a university class is conducted in a normal classroom, it will not be conducted in a laboratory.

Domain: university class

Rule: lab-work → laboratory

Rule: /lab-work → classroom

_________________________

classroom → /lab-work

This conclusion should read: classroom → /laboratory

NOT: classroom → /lab-work