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.

Before looking at the video explanation, I chose D at first because I narrowed it down between D and E. I was paying attention to the hypothesis conclusion, which was comparing and contrasting the benefits for consumers of parks and telecom., and zeroed in on D also focusing on the dissimilar benefits for these consumers.

However, E is the better answer because it takes into account both the premise and the conclusion. The premise states that telecom. privatization-->COMPETITION--->improve service + lower prices (benefits). According to the politician, the competition is the driving force behind benefits for consumer and park visitors (mentioned in the premise and conclusion). But D really weakens this argument by stating that this driving factor is not very powerful for parks.

I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.

Got the causal chain breakdown of the stimulus correct, even noticing that the first premise, A-Acid--prevents--->lowered cog. function, seemed disconnected to the other premises supporting the conclusion. However, I got the answers wrong because I got distracted by reading into the confusing language.

If you know that you need to be looking for an answer that tries to make the premise about A-acid relevant to the conclusion, then every answer other than B is immediately eliminated.

Focus on which premise needs connecting to the conclusion, and find its resolution in the answers!

Got the causal chain breakdown of the stimulus correct. Still chose wrong answers the first time and for blind review...

I chose E but definitely went back and forth between A and E. I didn't have the analysis on A like the video had, except for the main criticism that A is just another correlation that doesn't provide much support directly to the hypothesis. It's a correlation that can be added on to the correlation between family size and allergy development provided in the premises-phenomenon. However, the question is asking which one of the answer supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis focuses on the variable of exposure to germs during infancy. Answer E most directly speaks to the hypothesis-conclusion, as the condition of a child being put in daycare before age 1 necessarily means being exposed to way more germs in infancy. The result of E confirms the hypothesis-conclusion's prediction of these germ-exposed infants developing less allergies.

The stimulus baits you to focus on the size of the families, but if you pay attention to the last sentence, the hypothesis-conclusion, you see that the answer is going to most likely talk about children's exposure to germs (and any conditions that will contribute to that).

I think the written answer explanations were easier to follow than the video.