Like full screen mode won't be available during the actual exam? What does that look like?

@ITTutoring How does this effect the actual testing interface?

@LSATTAKER What started helping me go faster when I was truly stuck on these kinds of questions was using the search bar to search individual words. Since we know the passage gives evidence for the question, we know it falls on the strongly implied section, so it doesn't hurt to quickly search a word like "fiction," which would take you to the right AC quickly!

@Arthurxx There is an important distinction I think that can be made between ownership of the lands (inferring the rights and resources that the passage mentions) and FULL ownership. What does full ownership mean? Does it mean that the Maya can kick everyone else who isn't Mayan off those lands? We don't know.

@ErinRyan I think it's important to note that that line is almost like a concession the author makes where they admit that Belize could develop some different jurisprudence if they wanted to and they're able to do that. The author's opinion then comes in the next and final sentence to argue that, despite this, because of common law, there is "a presumption in favor of recognizing indigenous rights in Belize." Otherwise speaking, there is merit to recognizing these rights.

I also picked AC D but I was really iffy about it because AC E didn't include anything about international law, though it could be argued that it also part of other nations' precedents (like with the Australia example). But I think where AC D is too strong is in its "fundamentally unsound precedent" because a. we don't know what the actual effect of that precedent will be and b. this isn't something the author actually says. The author actually doesn't mention at all the consequences of failing to recognize indigenous rights (at least, I don't think they did!).

@ZulymarPerez Indirect support would be if it supported an intermediate conclusion, which then directly supported the conclusion!

@Kellbell206 The first premise/sentence gives us a correlation, comparing the frequency of illnesses between two groups (one of which gets at least 8 hours and the other who doesn't). The second sentence gives us the conclusion by describing a causal relationship: mild sleep deprivation --> causes the body to bolster its defenses against illnesses. We can never validly conclude a correlation from a causation. What if there's some third factor, like an autoimmune disease, which requires people to get at least 8 hours of sleep or more but also makes them more susceptible to illness? This third factor is something that the medical researcher overlooks, and it's exactly why AC A is correct. Since a third factor (chronic disease) could causally contribute to getting more sleep and greater frequency for illness, it is a flaw in the argument.

Often, we can be sure we have a correlation when two groups with the same properties are being compared as more/equal/less than the other. If the argument introduces a causal relationship between these factors, we know we have a flaw of correlation doesn't equal causation!

@sunnytsao313794 This is super late response, but I'll respond in case anyone else finds they did something similar! It's super important here to distinguish between POSITIONS (as in the literary critics' positions) and the POSITIONS of the PARAGRAPHS. For AC A, the author would have had to elaborate in DETAIL about all of the positions, but the author doesn't tell us much about the first position; all we are told is in the second sentence that "art stood high above the present and everyday."

Of the three positions, the author spends paragraphs 2-4 explaining us the distinct arguments made by radical critics (position 2) and Dostoyevesky (position 3). Hence, AC C is correct in that the third (Ds) is differentiated from the second (radical critics) in detail.

@LowOriginalConnection Maybe I'm reading this wrong but wouldn't AC B be a better strengthener? Since it eliminates an alt exp that the weights had any influence on aerobic exercise/psychological stress?

@freddywong Comparing what the passage said and what the ACs said, it is unclear what "strict scientific methodology" Temple is using. Additionally, we can't say his findings were carefully derived since we just know he fed them to turkeys - some emerged, some didn't, and only 3 were planted (?). It's also important to note the author says HE saw this as vindicating to his hypothesis -- the author themselves did not.

The point of the author says "semblance of rigor" is to give credence that ok well direct proof wasn't attainable but this finding gave an appearance that validates his hypothesis. That wording matches with the "superficially appeared to bolster...his hypothesis" language in AC D.

I was racing through the questions in this last passage as I was running out of time and did not notice that it said sandstorms rather than sandslides. I was originally stuck between A, B, and C on my first pass and chose AC B. I understand in BR how the question stim is actually referring to the two distinct hypotheses, specifically referring to the sandSTORM and not sandSLIDE hypo from P1. That's why only AC C can be correct.

@PS7346Y8 This is a super late response but maybe it'll help someone down the line! The arguments draws conclusions about the merit of this position: the classification of the fossil being reflected by a recent classification rather than Walcott's classification. The content of that position is the scientific significance of the unusual fossils. The evidence about the position's source comes from Walcott being a member of a science group. The argument assumes that Walcott's position must have been the same because he is a member of that group, so we can better understand the fossils by evaluating them under a more recent class of science than an older class.

I prephrased the flaw as being a part to whole flaw, but when I went diving in the ACs, AC A is both descriptively accurate and explains why the conclusion may have been invalidly drawn.

How would you compare approaching the personal statement versus optional diversity statement when it comes to why you want to law and talking about your background? Should they be similar or very different?