But for AC B, passage 2 explicitly states "you can read a passage however you like" and doesn't imply that has any issue with the genre. Thus, that author would likely agree that your expectations don't define the genre, it's just whatever expectation would be most enjoyable.

I actually got this one wrong on BR...switched my answer to A because just because a juror is less likely to understand legal jargon vs simple language, does not mean that they are unlikely to. Like if they went from 100% likely to 98% likely, that still means most of the time jurors will have both precision and an adequate understanding of their role.

I guess I'm just confused on how the theory was solved from within C & C's theory if they had to bring in this outside source to explain it. If they had said something like "C & C repeat this finding/reasoning" or "This is drawn from C & C's finding that..." I feel like I would've been able to confidently say it was within the same theory. But it wasn't - we had to bring in an outside source. If they had cut that sentence out and just left us with "Carroll and Chen take our universe, and others, to be fluctuations in a high entropy multiverse." We would have no reason to believe that these fluctuations are normal and that this is a compelling answer given the text. IDK would love others thoughts or help

I got this one wrong and answered D - my reasoning was is that it seems to me that both authors agree that the protagonists desires don't affect the outcome, since both do indeed accept a divine necessity of action. Where Lesky differed was by insisting that the moral evaluation of Agammemnon still occurs due to his desires, so then I thought that Rivier would say deity action is relevant to moral evaluation (in the fact that it makes it somewhat pointless), whereas Lesky would argue that it is not relevant (since we can still condemn Agammemnon).

As the others have said, this is an objectively bad question since AC B and D both require us to make assumptions that we have no evidence for in the stimulus.

I don't understand. If the flaw here is presuming incorrectness since each of the tests had a flaw, A does not follow. Imagine if all of the chefs had very good criteria for selecting a winner, but they all weren't uniform with one another. That is what the answer says, no? In this hypothetical, the tests are not flawed - they simply aren't shared. If I am to understand the answer as instead saying that the criteria of each judge is not internally consistent and uniform, then the answer should be worded differently.

I'm just a little confused here - the conclusion doesn't establish causality (e.g. these birds use the Shooter's island water BECAUSE they are still), so I don't understand why we would have to prove that in our answer. I thought that was where it was trying to trick us, honestly. Just because the stillness of the water is a notable quality of it doesn't necessitate that being the reason for this observation, and the author doesn't indicate that to be the case either.

This doesn't really make sense to me. A revision doesn't happen overnight, it takes time. If that revision is underway, great, but in the meantime confidence is still low, and something needs to be done in the interim. Thus, Answer C should be ruled out. What am I missing??

Hey, fellow ADHDer here and I totally relate to what you're talking about. I am happy to tell you what worked for me, but I just have to remind you what I like to remind myself - we all experience this differently, and if what worked for me or someone else doesn't work for you, that's totally okay and there is nothing wrong with you!

Aside from that, I personally chose to continue doing timed drills, but instead of doing unlimited (where I wasn't affected by pressure at all and couldn't really get my body accustomed to it), I would set a custom timer that was longer than the standard recommended time, starting with 200%, then 150%, then 125% as I got better. I found that to be the sweet spot where my brain doesn't just check out, but that also didn't muddle my scores with other factors.

Other than that, what I'm sure you've heard before but I'll repeat - whenever I catch myself re-reading more than, say, 4x, that's my sign that it's time to move on. Normally, when I come back to it, I'm in a different, clearer headspace to read the stimulus rather than waste time trying to process info that just isn't gonna clock for me. Best of luck! You got this!

as someone who has met many essential oil quacks, I can assure you that most of them would not pursue clinical evaluation in the first place even in the absence of a psuedoscientific alternative...

I answered this one as E, not because I interpreted it as meaning the same exact point in the body of water, but because the definition of a basin of attraction does not necessarily implicate the existence of a body of water. Even in the definition underlined it mentions that it was defining a basin of attraction "for a body of water". Also, if the answer was supposed to imply the exact same location, it should have said "point" not "destination". I feel like in another world AC E could've been correct and D could've been the trick answer. Oh well!

I'm a little confused, I see that C is a stronger answer choice that absolves the railroad companies but it also expanded the question to all companies instead of just the railroad company, which I feel was overinclusive. I picked B instead because of this.

Kevin, you are my Moses macaque of the LSAT.