I’d love to know the curve for this

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQClK_3grB2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsi=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

What Passage A to B felt like

Got it, but just to be sure, we're saying "irrelevance" = 0% relevance? I.e., no tangible importance to speak of whatsoever?

If you ever wanted to know how good LSAC is at making stuff boring, I've literally read "The Awakening" and I hate this passage 😂.

I've noticed some people are saying that the author was advocating for the long-term approach throughout the passage. However, I only noted the author coming in at the last paragraph, giving their requirement for it to work. Is there evidence that she supported the approach before then? Every other point seems to be preceded by "experts recommend," "critics claim," etc.

I've noticed some people are saying that the author was advocating for the long-term approach throughout the passage. However, I only noted the author coming in at the last paragraph, giving their requirement for it to work. Is there evidence that she supported the approach before then? Every other point seems to be preceded by "experts recommend," "critics claim," etc.

Ah yes, horses plowing the fields is definitely similar to Antarctic seals chilling at the bottom of the freezing ocean for 5 hours

Putting conditional reasoning in an RC question is genuinely horrendous

Very sneaky. My brain just glided right over "unprofessional" and "acting professionally" for a whileee until I realized

Routinely

So, wait, if an argument has a sub-conclusion that exhibits a certain flaw, but then a main conclusion that exhibits a different flaw, are we to ignore the flaw in the SC and look for the answer choice that attacks the flaw of the MC?

Also, are we to handle the phrase "almost certainly" the same as "certainly"? It's such a high bar for both, so I assume that both would be going wayyy too far (90%+ vs 100% if I'm not mistaken), and that we would attack them similarly.

Ah yes. A level 1 difficulty to a level 5 curve breaker.

Silly rabbit, you confused a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions

Got it right b/c it def does what A describes. However, I want to know if anybody else spotted this assumption and went into the answer choices looking for it like I did ⬇️⬇️⬇️

That fewer fat calories = healthy dietary behavior.

Or are we supposed to just assume that a diet with fewer fat calories automatically means "healthful dietary behavior"?

Call me crazy, but does this seem sort of like a WSE question to anyone? Feels like it's playing around with the unstated premise/gap that Mozart did NOT get the fracture AFTER his death. So, our quasi-strengthening answer choice confirms this by attaching it to the premise at the end

Can we treat these similarly to MBT/MSS? Seems the same, except its structural now

@RamseyEaton Also this is prob the dumbest thing I've ever seen

answer choice D is literally just The Prestige. Spoiler alert btw

Wait so to clear the air around B before going forward, when someone says, "X is not a sufficient condition for Y," it's still possible that X is a sufficient condition AMONG OTHER THINGS? correct? So, X could logically still contribute to Y positively, just not on its own?

And as a result of this, A is right b/c it downright denies the relationship, whereas B still allows it to contribute?

Is it wrong to say that the flaw here is overgeneralization from a narrow subset? I.e., the author assumes that b/c this is happening in specific countries (subset), they are representative of other/all countries with respect to advertising?

Non-representative sample?

When did we say anything about installation/purchasing? Can we not assume it possible that they didn't pay for it (via grants? etc.?)