The questions were definitely difficult. LSAC knew what they were doing making this the last passage!

I'm trying to figure this out myself. I think what you stated is correct. We know that the influence of the sit-ins was apparent in the Freedom Rides and it brought national attention via the U.S. government. Maybe A just expresses the author's view more accurately, making it the correct answer.

No, because they wouldn't try out any other brands different from the brand of their first PC. They are very loyal to that brand. With B I even took it another way and thought, what if the brand is garbage and they must keep rebuying the same PC? Then it would invalidate the entire phenomenon of sales being low.

I settled on B, but answer choice D was very tempting. JY skipped over the answer, so I am going to try and go through my thinking process when I was considering it.

I read it as though the humans built these boxes, and therefore, most of the habitats are filled with box nests rather than woody vegetation or open grassland. This would be why the common eider most commonly selects the boxed nests...because it is the prevalent option. But with that, there are too many assumptions for it to effectively explain why they choose them.

Having indoor seating would increase their success for sure. We cannot conclude though that they would probably succeed based on that alone. This is my interpretation of why C is incorrect.

In his defense, lsac do be using the same methods to fool us over and over

Lol exactly. I didn't give it the consideration it deserved for this reason

mmm chocolate covered pretzels

C works because the seals becoming comfortable with plant-eating killer whales is a learned behavior. They are naturally terrified when they hear the chatter. Hearing an unfamiliar chatter would cause them to swim away because they do not have the learned behavior that was developed specifically for the chatter of plant-eating killer whales.

I took this practice test while sick with covid and made a bunch of dumb mistakes like this one here

I got this info from the Powerscore guys. This test is where a shift occurred in how the questions and answers were worded. If you compare it to some earlier test questions you can notice a difference!

I thought we were trying to weaken whether they were nomadic. The teeth thing seemed so weird to me. Odd question overall. Dang.

Only got this right by the process of elimination. But, I think that is the best strategy for any EXCEPT question type.

Practical intelligence is a skill that is not developed on its own.

If someone is always given what they want, they will not gain practical intelligence.

Answer B says that skills (practical intelligence) are learned only if needed.

This bridges the gap because the someone in the conclusion is always given what they want. So, they cannot learn practical intelligence because it is never needed but provided whenever they wish.

This one is tricky bc I usually try not to pick answers that relate to other studies as a way to strengthen a study in the argument. In this case, none of the other answers really did it for me.

The problem I have with weakening is that I look for conclusive evidence. Sure hunting weapons may not be regarded as sophisticated tools and we don't even know that this group of people made them necessarily, but it still offers the best evidence in light of the others.

So let's say there are 2 groups of people. Group A produces an average amount of cortisol and Group B produces a higher amount than Group A.

The argument states that both groups experienced a traumatic event. Group A got PTSD but Group B didn't.

So, they are assuming that, because Group B experienced the event but did not get PTSD, they now produce more cortisol as a stress response.

What answer choice B states is that, well, actually, people who produce more cortisol have a lower chance of developing PTSD from traumatic events. It switches the cause and effect around which weakens the argument.

yikes

Pretty lame answer choices lol

Man after using 7sage for the past 2 months or so, these really long and convoluted explanations just burn me out completely.

I have no idea why A was an attractive answer choice and why I initially chose it over C. I have LSAT amnesia looking back at these questions sometimes lol.

This passage as the intro to the prep test absolutely ruined me

Remember that this test is where a change in LR started to occur. They really mess with you on some of these questions. I am finding that to be true, especially on these main conclusion problems.

Q4 - I understand why the author would agree with this statement, but struggle to see it from Rawl's POV. Can anyone help clear this up for me? #help

It would have to affect the development of one internal national tradition and one external national tradition. This is why E is correct.

The statement of a work not being a part of world literature if it only satisfies the requirement of affecting the development of one national tradition is correct and the passage supports this view.