I got rid of C because it said "most responsible" instead of just "responsible" ... not sure if that was good enough reason.

Go to the link below and look at #15. I couldn't understand why it was C, but now it makes so much sense after just referring back to the common flaws. Really suggest looking at this!

https://7sage.com/blog/19-common-lsat-argument-flaws-that-students-overlook

I really read corporation in A and was like NOT CITIZENS in my mind... oops lmao, this one is pretty obviously E given that the question is MUST violate and not might or could violate (making C wrong).

I fell for B, and I understand why it's wrong. I think there could have been a bit more said to show it being wrong.

Let's use an example to show why it would be wrong.

Average age of common species: 20 years / reproduces the most

Average age of rare species: 50 years / reproduces the least

If you have two given trees that are 4 years old (1 COMMON and 1 RARE), (B) does not help to explain the phenomenon provided in the stimulus. Perhaps all of their reproduction happens in their first 15 years. From this it could still be the case that they reproduce roughly the same! This still satisfies (B) in that older trees (let's say, over 15 years) reproduce less than younger trees. B alone cannot account for explaining what is in the stimulus. This is just one example, but I'm sure there are other examples that could show why B is wrong.

E on the other hand explains that being the most common and having the highest reproduction could lead to reduced life expectancy. If there is higher competition for a tree species, they won't all be able to live until they are super old since resources are finite. The rare species that has a niche in eating something that is undesirable (as JY hypothetically states, since trees don't physically eat meat/soil lol) allows them to survive for much longer with less competition.

Why A is wrong (in my words): Even if we assume EVERY SINGLE PERSON overestimates the dangers that the world poses to them, that is taken into account in the stimulus. Let's assume on average people are overestimate dangers by +50%.

The stimulus is saying that people who watch more TV than average think of this risk much more than those who do not. As in, those who watch more TV could overestimate dangers by +70%, while the rest overestimate dangers by +50%. This still wouldn't weaken the argument, and in fact could already be assumed to be true.

I ended up picking B, but the logic is basically supporting the stimulus, which I didn't catch. In BR, I got E when I just diagrammed it quickly.

E is correct because it provides a DIFFERENT explanation, and that TV isn't the root cause of it, rather the place that you live is the reason why those beliefs exist.

Ergh JY's explanation of B really irks me here... he's like "this thing doesn't match this thing" but doesn't get at the core of why it is wrong (not violating basic human rights).

This question is a lot easier than I think JY made it seem in the explanation for deciding between C & D. This is how I got it quickly:

Stimulus:

A --> B

/B

-------------

/A

A: Likely play behavior/not mating

B: Females & juveniles engage

Answer choice C:

A --> B

B

-------------

A

A: Weather forecast calling for heavy snow

B: Roy cancel trip

Error: Failing necessary does not lead to concluding the sufficient

Answer choice D:

A --> B

/B

--------------

/A

A: Construction on schedule

B: Foundation completed

Great, matches correctly!

I got demolished, worst LR section in recent memory!!

D just provides such friendly wording that it is hard to prove it wrong based off the information provided. Specifically, with the some in D, it makes it correct. If it didn't say some and instead said all or most, it wouldn't really be supported.

Target time: 35:00

B r u t a l

LMAOO same I was gonna comment this, it made me laugh

Me: spend 3 minutes staring at question during PT and gets it wrong

Also me: spends 1 minute diagramming and gets answer correct

God I hate anxiety during the PTs!!

Anyways, this is how I diagrammed it fully:

not(WantPersontoProsper) --> not(Kind) --> Dislike ←s→ RespectEachOther

Dislike --> not(FullyContent) I wanted to chain this above, but also had the some statement

Therefore, if you take the contrapositive, you get FullyContent --> Like --> Kind --> WantPersontoProsper

Thus, B must be false because that is not possible for ANY who are fully content to not want others in their presence.

Takeaway: DIAGRAM DIAGRAM DIAGRAM, otherwise, cut your losses and move on.

Oops didn't realize ensure is a trigger for sufficient condition :

I really did not understand what it means to scoop a reporter. After just Googling what that meant the answer feels so easy lol. Suggest looking that up if you are still confused a little!!

The second sentence really messed me up in terms of understanding the stimulus... Maybe it's just me!

Mrs. Keisha! Mrs. Keisha! Oh my god she's f*cking dead D:

-How I felt about this passage

I really eliminated C because the stimulus didn't make it seem like those were the ONLY substances that could exist, just that they were ones that were discovered. I don’t think we know enough about Pluto to make those assumptions, and again, the stimulus did not make it clear those were the only ones. Frustrates me with a science background!!!!

In the end, I understand why C is the best option (the others aren't right), but C alone does not really seem all that convincing..

The way answer C is written is so bad. I got it right, but I wasted sososo much time trying to decipher the bad grammar it messed me up later ugh.

Tough question, looking at (C) I can see another small reason that helps me get deterred from it. It is talking only about the highly motivated people, when that's not what the author was focusing on. The explanation in the video is great, but also paying attention to "highly motivated" helped me move away from it more now.

Was JY sick here D:

Also so mad at myself because I didn't read the word EXCEPT clown face emoji

#help

Can someone explain why it says the scientists were "surprised"? Isn't the information exactly the same and, thus, they wouldn't be surprised? Or is it saying that this is new information for the scientists, and is thus tricking us into thinking that something different is happening than what we just read?

Sorry if that didn't make any sense... this question gets me EVERY time.

Write a little bigger JY I beg of you

I do think reading the first line of the passage and the first line of the last paragraph helped me between B and C (I got it wrong and was like wtf at first... but now I get it). Super sneaky!!