@MMAceAttorney177 I'm not really sure what you're trying to say? I never said that the Jeff Bezos example could not happen at all. It totally could. But so what if it simply could happen? The person above is using that lone (unlikely) example as the only or most reasonable reading of D and using that to write D off as being wrong, when there are plenty more likely and reasonable readings of D that make it a necessary assumption. Not really sure what conclusion you're trying to support or what I'm missing, lmk if I misunderstood anything

@e.wimoine I see what you're saying but I guess "development" doesn't have to be positive. Ie, a "development of indigenous rights" just means a "change," which could be positive or negative. So granting the concessions would definitely be a setback, but you could also technically call it a (negative) development in indigenous rights

I guess I'm a little confused on the distinction being made for A. How exactly are the standards by which contemporary art is judged (novelty, shock value, ugliness, etc) not purpose? Why couldn't a piece of contemporary art be made with the purpose of creating shock value or be interpreted by people has having the purpose of creating shock value, and thereby be judged as being beautiful? Wouldn't that line up with Kant's view?

I feel like I'm misunderstanding what "purpose" means. Ofc it seems like the other ACs don't work as well but I want to understand this answer on its own merits

@TristanBarros I think you're right that the AC never says that the chimps are near each other and can therefore copy one another. It would be great if it said that, and it was also my hang up on this AC too.

But I think the way Kevin puts it in the video really helps. This AC is a specific causal mechanism aka how culture could even be a viable explanation. It doesn't guarantee the conclusion, but it's almost like a necessary assumption - imagine if chimps were physically incapable of learning behaviors from other chimps, whether or not they were genetically related. That would make it far more likely that all of their behavior is because of genes, not culture. So A strengthens in so far as it allows the explanation to even be possible, even if it's not guaranteed by saying that the groups did in fact interact with and learn from each other.

And at the end of the day, there's no other AC that really strengthens to any degree near this AC, so this is valid.

@kju766 just my opinion, but I don't think this reading of Walnut Lane as a potential sub-location under Main Street is well-supported. Just on its face if you take the phrases "Main Street" and "Walnut Lane" and give them to any random person, they're probably going to think "oh that refers to 2 streets. 1 is a street called Main Street. The other is a separate street called Walnut Lane."

Adding "location" after each term doesn't really change much. If the "Walnut Lane location" is somehow also a part of the "Main Street location," why wouldn't the test just say that Pat could get the coupon at the "Main Street location", rather than referring to some specific sub-location?

if this doesn't convince you that's fine, but it should at the very least be clear that the stim could be referring to Walnut Lane and Main Street as 2 separate locations. That also seems like a reasonable assumption, and under that interpretation, D must be true. You may disagree with defaulting to that assumption, but compare this lone fairly reasonable assumption for D with the multiple unreasonable assumptions you have to make for the other answers (where possible, C is just not possible) and D is the best answer you have left either way.

@nathantveloso0 Elderly Indian residents eating other curries is not off the table. The argument never commits to saying that the elderly Indian Singaporean residents only eat Indian curries and nothing else. I can't find anything in the stimulus, ACs, or JY's explanation that says this. The only thing assumed is that they eat Indian curries more often than non-Indian residents, on average (though not always. I'm sure there are some elderly Indian Singaporean residents who eat Japanese, Thai, etc curries more often than Indian curries and vice-versa with some non-Indians). But it seems pretty reasonable to say that someone would eat their own cuture's food more often (though not always) than someone of a different culture.

@amsharma2002 I would disagree that it relies on that assumption. Nowhere in the arg or the AC or in JY's explanation do you ever have to assume that elderly Indian Singaporean residents only eat Indian curry, just that they do so more often than non-Indian elderly Singaporean residents. And idk, it seems pretty reasonable to say that a certain ethnicity on average (though not always) eats their own culture's food more often than people outside their ethnicity.

@nickpicado777169 To add to Nick's point, all the stim says about these other articles is that they relied on the survey. We don't know if they made the same claim that Raghnall did, that financial problems are the major cause of divorce. For all we know, they could've just cited this in a footnote talking about family problems or economic problems. So E is unsupported, while C doesn't run into these issue

@Gbalzer but the question stem says "each of the following aspects of Renaissance humanist education is mentioned except:" so pointing towards medieval monastic education is irrelevant, since that's an entirely different era. Can't be an aspect of Renaissance humanist education

@dbasalone I think you're adding stuff to what M is saying. Nowhere in M's remarks does he say what you've put in parentheses ("the placebo certainly will not" have various effects). It's entirely possible that M thinks the placebo will have effects - he's just assuming that if there are effects, they're different than the ones from the drug. But you can't assume that one way or the other.

If M's remarks were written in the way you've put them here, then I could maybe see how C also works. But given that M's remarks aren't written that way, we can't modify the argument to make C also work.

We're trying to figure out how E is interpreting M's remarks as they are. From E's POV, M's remarks say nothing about whether the placebo does or doesn't have effects. So E can't definitively be thinking that "oh this M guy for sure thinks the placebo has no effects."

@HappyTestTaker Of course, I definitely support the idea of trying to enjoy whatever you're reading, whether it's RC or LR! Makes the test as a whole go down much smoother, it's really smart strategically. Do you notice any specific kinds of questions you tend to miss the most often in RC? And when you're reading, do you read faster than you usually do (whether for fun or on BR) and feel pressured by the clock? If your answer is yes to the 2nd question, my advice would, ironically, be to slow down. Simply put, slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. It'll aid your understanding greatly and avoid any misreading mistakes

Going to link you to a comment that I made on a similar discussion post (because I'm lazy lol) but hopefully it's relevant. But happy to give any advice if you want to share more details about your studying and specific obstacles. And yes believe in yourself! You got this!

https://7sage.com/discussion/56663/tired-of-studying

@lebronfan I think you're making a huge assumption thinking that the Jeff Bezos example is at all typical here... this isn't me endorsing the guy or anything but 1) it's possible we aren't talking about people of his ilk and 2) why do we have to assume that he lays off people after surviving an accident?

instead if you assumed that the people injured and saved are just average citizens, then net employment becomes incredibly relevant. The written explanation and JY's video explanation shows this pretty well. Say you have 100 people injured. Under this solution, 100 people are saved (which is obv great) and the author assumes that their increased earnings will contribute positively to the economy. But what if the people saved aren't contributing to the economy? They could be children, the elderly, unemployed, etc in which case they're not adding to the economy in the way the argument suggests. Or, the treatment from these serious injuries might not render them able to continue working. They could be in comas, face disabilities, etc. In that case, the author must assume that if people survive via trauma centers --> net increase in employment, ie people are good enough to return to their jobs and contribute to the economy. Otherwise, there's no connection between lives being saved and economic benefit

I sympathize with your frustrations about the questions. These are trickier than most questions traditional academia has had in store for us. But getting frustrated at the test saps away energy you could use towards crushing this question and other questions and getting your dream score. These questions are solvable and honestly do rely on reasonable assumptions being made. They want you to be frustrated and slip up on the test. Be better than them.

Really solid advice here in the non-negotiables and side tips!

Haven't taken my final official attempt yet (so take everything here with a grain of salt) but I feel confident enough to say that I've broken through into the solid 170s after also being in the dreaded 160s plateau forever.

Firstly, it's absolutely worth it to hope for consistent 170 scores and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's worth it not only because it will help you get into better schools obviously, but lower-ranked schools that you get into will be willing to offer you better scholarships and make what is notoriously an expensive process much cheaper, especially if you use those offers to negotiate for scholarships. To that end, my first piece of advice would be to actually not place any attempt as being the "final attempt." It seems like you've taken it twice already, but you have a total of 5 attempts in 5 years (2 more beyond that for your lifetime maximum). Schools only care about your highest score. I see little upside to declaring June to be your final attempt, when you still have 2 more swings at bat to hit a home run, especially since if you're applying for this fall like me, you will have plenty of other test administrations in August, September, etc where you can still take the test and apply. Don't put pressure on yourself unnecessarily by prematurely declaring one attempt to be the final one when you don't need to.

As for the LSAT side of things, I don't know what your study routine is like but your profile shows a decent mix of drills and sections. You've done a healthy amount of questions but there would are a few things that might help the most that I implemented to finally notice a change:

1. Are you wrong answer journaling? and how thoroughly are you doing this? When I was in my 160s plateau, I initially didn't wrong answer journal at all and just hoped I would finally break through on one of these attempts. And when I did start journaling, there was honestly a good bit of time where I was half-assing it. If I got it right on blind review, I was just like "eh, just gotta read better, nothing much else to it." That is the wrong way of going about things. If there's even a shred of doubt about any part of a question, even if you got it right or got it right on Blind Review, review each question thoroughly. Consult every source you can: the written explanations, the video explanations, the "Ask a tutor" button, even some of the comments on each question left by other students and tutors can be helpful. Leave no stone unturned. Each question you get wrong (and arguably even ones you were correct but unsure/guessed on) has 2 issues: you were tempted by the wrong answer(s) when you shouldn't have been, and you missed the right answer. These mistakes will repeat in one form or another on future questions so don't bank on the fact that you've gotten other questions like this right. Address the root of the problem thoroughly. This is a time-consuming process. I honestly have spent much longer reviewing questions than doing questions and that was what got me past a lot of mistakes that kept showing up over and over again. Note down the traps you fall for routinely. There's honestly a solid chance your mistakes are from not reading thoroughly enough and if so, mirror that process on the actual timed drills, sections, and tests you do. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Visualize concepts or give concrete example numbers if that helps make an abstract stimulus/situation more concrete. Develop your own strategies for crushing your weaknesses confidently.

2. Work on questions consistently. It doesn't have to be everything every day, but just something everyday helps. Even if it's just an RC passage or just a handful of questions or review. The secret here is to try and make this as enjoyable as you can. Yes, some of these topics are arcane and mundane. Try and find something about it that interests you. The questions and review fly by a lot easier when this is something you enjoy rather than something you dread. You may still score questions right if you dread the test and do it kicking and screaming, but it goes so much smoother the more you come to enjoy the questions and view it as less of a challenge and more like something routine and fun, like a puzzle. The easier and more calmly you can crush the easy questions, the more time, focus, and energy you'll have for the genuinely tougher ones, and that'll leave you at the end of a section confident and ready to do more, rather than stressing out over whether you've guessed right on a bunch of questions.

I probably have more advice tailored to your situation if you wish to share more/DM. But hope this helps!

@nehemieeloiseau304 I'd have to disagree respectfully. I think JY's explanation pretty clearly lays out that there is no support for C's statement of choreographing various interpretations while there is plenty of support for A's merely highlighting elements that were already present in the cakewalk

@sjbutton THANK YOU. this just made everything click in my head

Really loved the written explanation on this. just focusing on the precise conclusion (as opposed to the broader ones that B and E get you to go for) makes this so much easier. Caveman summaries are great for every stim, highly recommend

@jett crazy that this is question #8 in the section. I thought I was losing my mind seeing this hard of a question early on, I thought I was about to bomb the section struggling with something this early on and assuming that things would be tougher after this

and then it turns out, this is one of the hardest LSAT questions ever. lol

the example in Kevin's video explanation to explain how A works is hilarious, I'm stealing that 😂

I was between A and D and I guess the reasoning for A goes that if you can test a change to a theory (the 2nd theory’s alteration to the theory of gravity), you can also test the original theory itself (Einstein's)? 

D is just more unsupported. The 2nd theory only suggests that Einstein’s theory is wrong about gravity across distances, but we haven’t tested this out or have any evidence, so we can’t claim anything about the best available evidence (if it doesn’t exist) or whether the theory is in fact wrong.

@HannaWallace I think I'd refer to what some of the other tutors above have said. The comic strip was written from 1937-38, so you can at least justify the 1930s part. And it's not unreasonable to assume that the musicians featured were featured in the not too distant past from this point, which would include the 1920s. Since this is isn't explicitly stated, just strongly implied, I'd say this is enough room. You aren't making some totally unreasonable jumps, like saying it was about musicians in the 1800s or 1950s or something.

Moreover, you have to compare this AC (imcomplete and imperfect as it is) to whatever else you chose. I'd really doubt that you could make fewer or more reasonable jumps to defend the other answers.

@abramyansemail505 I'd disagree that either of those words show hesitation. Saying that the paintings were meant to do symbolize/do something doesn't indicate the author's attitude. That's just a description. You could agree or disagree with that description, but it doesn't show hesitation.

In some different contexts, "probably" might indicate hesitation but I don't think it does here. If the author was hesitant about accepting this hypothesis, they might've introduced doubts or a competing explanation with just as much, if not more evidence behind it. I think "probably" here serves more as being safely within doubt, saying that we don't know 100% for sure, but that among the options out there, this is the best one available.

@businessgoose that's good to hear, I'm probably giving my memory too much credit lol 2 months is a long time 😅 quick question about the older PTs - are there explanations for some of the questions? written or video? I don't want to look through all the questions without having done them first to figure out whether there are explanations

Here's a way of reading AC A that I think is consistent with the passage and might help clear up some confusion I've seen some others have. I also interpreted A to say that the social norms somehow provide a direct, analogous enforcement mechanism like copyright has if someone steals your joke, ie the norms make the stealing comedian pay the owner of the joke back for whatever the joke is worth. But that's not how A has to be interpreted. It's saying the norms allow you to recoup the costs of developing a routine, and it doesn't specify that you recoup it by taking away from the stealing comedian. Here's a story that might help illustrate this:

• You develop X joke, it gets stolen by comedian Bob

• This AC is saying that the costs you had in developing X joke can be recouped bc of social norms. How? 

  • It is not that Bob somehow is forced to pay you for whatever the joke was worth because the norms have some enforcement mechanism

  • Instead the norms harm Bob. He’s shamed, ppl don’t work with him, bad rep, etc. His career tanks.

  • But after, you get to go on creating other jokes in the future and profit from them. The norms prevent anyone from being a dumbass like Bob and stealing from you. So you lost some costs when you made joke X and Bob stole it to make some money, but the social norms let you recoup those costs because you can make jokes Y, Z, etc in the future without those being stolen. The development costs are recouped, just not from Bob directly

Hopefully the analogy makes sense, but if it doesn't please let me know