For number 2, I don't see how the language changes regarding how strongly human rights should be evaluated, which is how I interpret the AC. It is more like the strength of the responsibility that governments should hold changes.

For Q23, I'm really glad he went over the second most popular answer by declaring it "seems weird" and moving on. Gonna get that question type right next time for sure.

We have to focus on the conclusion, though, I think. For what it's worth, I also picked "E", but it doesn't quite explain why the "less than optimal" layout is still standard.

I really think this question has a good a reason for being tossed as any has. Tell me if I'm missing something - nowhere in Dana's claims does she imply "children should not learn to adapt to various educational methods". She only claims that TEACHING methods should be dictated by the child's preferences. What if teaching a child educational adaption can be done within their preferences? What if a child kid learns to adapt on their own, outside of their formal education - should they NOT HAVE done that according to Dana? Where does it say adaptation can only be taught through practice? Dana's point is about educational efficiency, but what if learning to adapt contains other benefits outside of educational efficiency that Dana values more? It simply never says she believes children should NOT learn to adapt - even if though she DOES say that the teaching methods subsequently shouldn't be adapted in accordance. This feels like 5 wrong answer choices to me.

Why can't they all be like you, LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 05? Why oh why

Question 21 - my contention with AC C is that the passage says crops of a higher yield (high photosynthetic efficiency species) may lose that edge or advantage or advantage to those of lower efficiencies. This does not suggest lower efficiencies WILL grow to outnumber the high efficiency species - just that either some or all of the latter's advantage will dwindle. This is a full negative reversal, no? The high efficiency plant is still potentially higher efficiency, how are we to rightly assume it cannot continue outgrowing the low efficiency plant despite some negative progression?

I have an issue with this answer choice. It feels very valid to believe it's okay that a current drug on the market is better understood than drugs being tested - even if that drug isn't perfectly understood - because those drugs are still in testing. We have no idea how much testing there is left for them - we have no idea how soon they are planned to be released - what if it is in 10 years? What if, of the drugs currently being tested, most of them are brand, brand new to testing? Can someone help to explain this logical gap?

I think that this is a lot truer than the explanation against B given in the video. Given your explanation, the word completely seems to want more consideration than given in the 7Sage explanation, and is at least partially foundational to B's not being correct

You do not need to access your own personal experience to conclude that cafes are busier during the morning rush - it says it in the stimulus: "the cafes are always busier during the morning rush". Then, since we're dealing with the 24 hour confines of a day and hence the group of relata we're pulling from is not infinite (we're looking at specific times of day or sections of the day, not just any time in human history), you can now assume that the morning rush is being compared against the non-morning rush, and the stimulus details that the morning rush is busier than these.