Now I can understand E after two months, because the P3's mainpoint is:

Risk communication should therefore be based on the principle that people process new information in the context of their existing beliefs...

, because value systems should be included in existing beliefs.

I was struggled with A and C. I dismissed C because I do not think the passage mentioned advice, a super subjetive thing, and the authors focus on more detailed information, an objective thing(in my mind at least).

But I did not get the explanation of A. I would appreciate if someone can help

i did not know what is facelift before as a non-native english speaker, so could not get it

i want to know whether such type of questions is common, like using some rhetoric

i can not....that makes no sense to me

still can not exclude E.

Passage A discussed the principle of rectification to rectify the injustice caused by injustice, like stealing and defrauding.

Passage B introduced INA followed by the reasoning about Native American claims to land.

My question is:

1. The organization of B. Does not the second paragraph explain the reasoning behind the INA?

2. IF DOES, the second paragraph clearly proposes "land was illicitly taken","return."——Why is it not a proof for the application of the principle of rectification?

hope someone can help~

i just paused for one month for my final exam, and then i got totally cooked by it

i behave like ive never learned and practiced such things

I still feel so confused about B's explanation

Stimulus: can't prove 1 or 2 [also, cannot exclude other possibilities, 3]; 2[lightening] is very unlikely

However, B's explanation said "one of the options could still be less plausible!", how lightening can be same plausible as campers' fault though???

It's so meaninglesssssss

Thus, my understanding is:

S: no proof for 1 or 2

A: no reason to believe 1 or 2

B: has reason to believe 1 or 2 [B went too far]

I can't believe the target time of this question is 41 seconds...

A: not everything ≠ nothing

it's really tough for me to consider the presence of alternative without any hint in the stimulus, even though i know a is not good

i prefer graph

My experience of Tarot makes me better understand D, which is kind of like hypnosis. I asked what's the career future of me as an associate before and got a emperor. After that, I really get struggled for a period, however, I feel that's just the nourishment to become "lawyer emperor" now when I recall it.

The subjects of the other half was told, hey, you watched movie rather than musice, then they imagined how the movie is by themselves when they were asked to recalled.

I was told, hey, you were on the way to become better, then I imagine how my experience piece serve my ambition.

I think prefer≠can't detect the difference. e.g. I prefer diet coke, I still can tell difference between it and zero coke/general coke.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wealthy subjects, plz read more carefully

my first full correction... thank god... i almost lost my faith in lsat

I don't agree with the explanation that B is flawed because everytime is 50%. That's your common sense, but we use lawgic in Lsat, like we'll meet the assumption saying cats are fish.

I agree B is wrong just because the likelyhood is not same. However, the stimulus also talks a lot that the station has never changed. We don't know if there's something changed in D, and that's why I discarded it. So I'm a little confused, when we need a perfect answer, and when we just need an almost nessary answer.

老美你何意味啊。。。。。

I should have been more careful... but it's harder when it's close to ending, my brain was already overburnt

@Omiliay. Sorry to bother you, but you mean if they're caused by volcanoes, they're just craters, rather than MC?

This mistake makes me feel like an idiot. I was exercised to think in a more complicated way, but this is a pupil's question

what do you meannn bru

@Kevin_Lin I've already figured it out, but I met a series of such explanations on that day, which really annoyed me

do i really need a jd?

#feedback I really hope 7sage revise their explanation for wrong answers, rather that just saying it doesn't involve/mention/match, at least explain for why briefly.

I'm with you too. But after reading passage 3 again, I figured it out.

"most astronomers dismissed her interpretation", and "some sought...outer..."

If without the things after "and", it's entirely ill founded, but those "some" thought her foundation make a little sense, in the wrong way though. So D matches this structure more.

About E, most of them dismissed her interpretation, so they couldn't think her interpretation was correct.

@beyondsudi482 I'm totally with you after 8 years