@cappelldaniel400 Couldn't give myself a "what to watch out for next time" on this and this is a great explanation :)

Does anyone have takeaways on how to do better on questions like these in the future? I get people's explanations for why C is correct...just no idea on what advice to give to myself other than "you got the notable assumption wrong. it was wrong of me to assume that local codes would be more lenient than national codes. it's actually the other way around."

1) Question summary

-People who are allergic to cats are actually allergic to certain proteins found in animals' skin secretions and saliva.

-The particular proteins that will cause an allergic reaction varies among allergy sufferers.

- All cats are capable of provoking allergic reactions because all cats shed skin and spread saliva around their environment.

-But a particular cat can cause an allergic reaction in some but not all people who are allergic to cats.

2) Wrong reasoning - E

"There is no way to predict whether a given cat will produce an allergic reaction in a particular allergy sufferer."

I thought this mapped on well to the idea that a particular cat can cause an allergic reaction in some but not all people who are allergic to cats--so if you randomly put a cat in front of someone who was allergic to cats, you wouldn't necessarily know they would be allergic. As well, this could be well supported by the fact that the proteins that cause allergic reactions vary between allergy sufferers.

However, one could hypothetically run a test and find out which proteins a particular allergy sufferer responds to, and what proteins a particular cat has, so it could be possible to predict an allergic reaction.

"No way to predict" is too extreme for this stimulus.

3) Correct reasoning - C

"Not all cats are identical with respect to the proteins contained in their skin secretions and saliva."

This is supported because if cat allergy sufferers react to different proteins, and its common for a cat to cause allergic reactions in some but not other cat allergy sufferers, then it must be the case that not all cats have the same proteins. Hence, they do not incite the same allergic reaction across all cat allergy sufferers.

4) Lesson

For MSS questions, I will be careful of AC that are mostly supported except for the use of extreme language (no way, never, the only) in which you can find ways to discredit (maybe its more like sometimes)

Given author's perspective, which answer would the author most likely agree with. Answer is implied but needs strong support from text. Look into answer choices and do POE. Author's perspective in spotlight type passage is likely related to why they think the subject is significant.

Wrong Answer B Reasoning:

Last paragraph, author states that the despedida was a marker of the corrido's uniqueness, thought at least author would agree that corrido is unique.

Especially paragraph 2, author indicates that the author uses language, esp. metaphor, that incoprates imagery that is "readily recognizable to corrido listeners". P1 states that corridos use familiar linguistic conventions served to affirm the cohesiveness of Border communities--AKA the local audience.

However, being unique "among ballad forms" suggests that the corrido is unique/different from other ballad forms for using language familiar to locals. There isn't really a comparison made between corridos and other ballad forms. Could be that other regions might have other ballad forms that also use language specific/familiar to that region.

Correct Answer C and Reasoning:

Base author's POV in main point of the passage. P1, author states that corrido's relies heavily on familiar linguistic and thematic conventions in order to affirm the cohesiveness of the Border communities. Then goes on to talk about the components that make a corrido a corrido: P1 - content specific to the Border region, P2 - corrido told simply without embellishments, use of metaphor includes everyday familiar images and P3 carrido's despedida.

The despedida, while "perhpaps the clearest marker of the corrido's uniqueness", author spent the whole passage listing off several defining features of the corrido. Therefore, even if the despedida didn't survive, you could probably still identify as a corrido given it had these other traits.

Lesson:

For author's perspective questions where I'm asked to choose an answer that the author is most likely to agree with, orient yourself to the author's main point.

I have a habit of choosing answers that sound similar to the main point/authors POV because they contain some descriptively accurate elements (like key words) from parts of the passage, but when put all together, include something that is unsupported (i.e. "among ballad forms")

1) Question summary

Asks what can be inferred/implied from the passage overall, which means the answers have to be strongly supported by the text. Have to go to answer choices and do process of elimination

2) Wrong Answer & Reasoning - D

-Last paragraph talks about despedida, and in the beginning talks about how the corrido has some ready-made lines which is most evident in the corrido's formal closing verse of the despedida

-Last sentence says that in the despedida, the corrido's maker asserts that the task of relating an authentic Border tale has been accomplished

-Taken all together, thought that all corridos have a despedida that have the same role- and that the despidida being the best evidence of corridos "certain ready-made lines" meant that despedidas lines are ready made/the same

-However, even though all corrido's have a despedida and they have the same role, the lines in the despedida are variable. This is shown in the example of the despedida of the variant "Gregorio Cortez", where even lines within the despedida can change from version to version of this corrido.

-I think I was confused and thought that the despedida was the fourth line of the variant of Gregorio Cortez, instead of reading that the example provided was about the WHOLE despedida/"closing verse" (AKA collection of lines) and that this was just one version of the despedida in one version of the corrido of Gregorio Cortez

-In any case, the fourth line of a despedida, even if you interpreted this as being THE despedida, it doesn't stay the same across corridos because it is stating the subject of the corrido (which changes)

-Even though all corridos have a despedida, and some lines within a despedida are the same, it is not the case (or even likely) that the whole despidida (which has variable lines) is the same ACROSS MOST versions of the corrido

3) Correct Answer - C

Can find support in last paragraph.

In formal closing verse of corrido, of the lines within the despedida, "the first and third lines are a set of convention", meaning that these lines stay the same across corridos and their despedidas

4) What specific lesson can I take from this question?

-I sometimes get confused about what a term actually means because I don't pay close enough attention to how it is defined in context, its referential phrasing, and examples illustrating its meaning in the passage

-For example, I would have known that the despedida did not just mean the last line of a corrido if I had read it fully in context with sentence that said the despidedida is a closing VERSE (AKA containing multiple lines) and an example of a despedida of one variant of Gregorio Cortez which listed several lines and their respective functions.

@YaserRamadan that's what i thought but maybe that's too formulaic. either way the argument is concerned with polls being published around the time voters will make a decision

mapped this out crazy wrong so there was no hope of getting C lol

Ended up picking E in BR but how does it not fall into the same category of why A is wrong, of existing outside the domain of horror stories?

So A is wrong because "all descriptions of monstrous beasts" could be referencing non-horror stories about monsters....which stimulus doesn't talk about

Couldn't E "Some stories that employ symbolism" be referencing some non-horror stories that use symbolism?

Tried doing negation test since this is a necessary assumption question, but found myself getting more confused with what the AC was saying. Especially D, I negated to "No musicians have larger CC than do any nonmusicians"...which I interpreted as if that is true, then the premises fall apart because it denies that there even is a correlation between larger CC and musical training. But maybe this is a SA Q approach?

Can someone explain their approach for NA questions that don't rely on negation tests?

@MidoMashakel I also feel like research mentioned in Passage A has the same meaning as literature, the only catch being whether or not both were talking about plant control (which you point out they weren't).

AC A is the better answer because the only difference is that passage A says "furbearer" while Passage B says "furbearer mammal"....which those both fall within the category of "furbearing animals" in AC A

@angeliqueantonini01643 In the second paragraph, the people who use this plan who like it, will recommend it to others and get referrals for the firm: "Experience shows, the directors say, that if people are referred to a firm and receive excellent service, the firm will get three to four other referrals who are not plan subscribers"

I see that C is the better answer, but for A....could Amar's mention of "frankness" be referencing Pat's mention of "self-revelation"? They both mean being open.

Was a toss up between B and E, and chose E. I think they both use very similar language but one detail was crucial---the group who should take action.

For E, I connected the fact that the general failure to buy the advertised products would lead to cancellation TO the recommendation people should take action to buy the products. However, I paid attention to the last premise about people failing to buy products "during their favorite shows". I interpreted answer E "those who feel most strongly" as those who want to keep their favorite shows from being canceled. But I should've remembered that the conclusion offered that "anyone" who thinks a TV shows is worth preserving should buy the advertised products....which is a much broader scope than just those who feel most strongly about the show.

B most closely anchors to the conclusion, saying that the the group who "feels that a TV show is worth preserving" should take the specific action of buying the advertised products during that show if they don't want it to be canceled.

I'm having a really hard time understanding how "the quality of the work" in the IC is obviously referencing "the work" in the supporting premise which is /intrinsic.

If anything, the "quality of the work" seems to referencing the second issue of quality being objective rather than about matters of taste....which from there I just had no idea how to diagram.

Tying up "quality of the work" to "/intrinsic" is just not something I would consider even after seeing Kevin's explanation. Although it is a good explanation, I just don't know how I would train myself to see connections like this in the future.

Just clicked that I actually read The Awakening by Kate Chopin in my highschool AP Literature class. It was fire, Kevin should actually read it.

I feel like the sentence after it about the MMPA is more aligned with answer E?

I chose C in the end but I think A was attractive (and still hard for me to totally disprove) because I interpreted "abstract model" as referencing the comm. specialist's model of cultural relationship based on the dominance of imported productions over domestic culture. In paragraph 1, the author even describes the comm. specialists claim as "polemical and abstract".

So in my head, the answer choice reads as: "Without the emphasis on the diversity of human experiences (author's recommended model), we can't judge conclusively the degree to which cultural relationships can be described by the abstract model which the comm. specialists are offering, defined by cultural imperialism and the dominance of imported productions over domestic ones. "

I'd love someone's thoughts on how the "abstract model" in answer A should be interpreted differently.

Bookmark to come back to this lesson + take notes after a few practice RC passages

Got it right first time based on working through it in my head but it was between C and D. Blind review I tried to the negate test which had me choosing C. Doing negate test with C, I thought that if many films from earliest Hollywood years had already been transferred to acetate, that would make the premise about not being able to transfer all of them before they deteriorated less relevant.

Tips for Sufficient Assumption Questions [LSAT Logical Reasoning] by Kevin Lin

^This is the only thing that got me to actually grasp the patterns in SA question argument structures and corresponding approaches.

Please take the time to take notes on this video. It will help.

How do y'all take notes on difficult questions like these? Do you takes notes or do you just watch/read the content?

Spent a lot of time on notes for this lesson. Best explanations for answers are in the review section at the end.

Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.

I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.

I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.

So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.

Got it right on blind review. Remember to anchor to the conclusion and treat the answer choice as enhancing the premises already there. What is conducive to progress in physics? If the field of physics was doing "the same thing" as biologists, aka more effectively preventing scientific fraud.

enhanced safeguards --prevents--->fraud---->conducive to progress

contrapositive: /conducive to progress--->/preventing fraud.

^Answer A is the contrapositive of the conclusion.