Hi! Does anyone have a sense of how LSAC distributes difficulty of sections/passages? I'm usually quite consistent across sections with my scores, but occasionally, a really hard (4 or 5 star) RC or LR section will land me -6 or more. Some exams might have one and some seem to not. Do they take this into account with the curves? Just curious what people's sense is.
#feedback something about the answers in this section being grouped on the flaw they exhibit makes it a bit less challenging. on the first few Q's in this set, you could easily scan for the sufficiency-necessity flaw, and here it was the representative sample flaw. maybe breaking them up would be more natural, although there was clearly an intention to the sequencing being this way
Would removing the word 'significant' from Answer Choice E make that answer choice incorrect? As you would not know how many teachers could be brought in, and perhaps it would just be a few, which would not solve the issue of the shortage. #help
This is all hypothetical, and in isolation from the other answer choices, as it is clear why E is correct. Just purely playing around with the ideas, I am curious how much work 'significant' is doing in addressing the shortage of qualified teachers, and thereby making E a necessary assumption.
I don't think you can make the assumption that you did in this line: "then wouldn’t it mean that prospective students and their parents don’t view that that’s the case."
If you negate B, it means that the phenomenon of the price-value correlation does not exist, but I don't think you can take the step to whether or not that would affect the behavior of prospective students/families. Just because there might not be a correlation between price and value does not mean that families and students would recognize that and behave any differently, meaning it is not necessary.
#help While it is clear logically, JY here crosses out the correct answer (D) and circles E while explaining, just making for a bit of confusion.
#help
Echoing similar thoughts from previous lessons, it would be great to have a 'quick view' functionality with these video lessons to try these questions on our own before watching the explanation!
My take on this is that the conclusion of this argument is talking specifically about these two regions. It talks about both the large jungle between them and is also concludes that they must have been transferred from one region to the other, meaning that the potential existence of these dogs elsewhere is irrelevant. It is telling you that the scope of the argument is limited, also it's not a flaw question, so you're not being asked to find a potential flaw in the argument, which means we are probably meant to take the scope of the argument at face value. Even though A seems to strengthen, its not necessary