This question may seem a little confusing at first but once you put all the pieces together it's really not too bad. Let's think about it…basically they're telling us, hey look I'm a reader and I'm not really sure what I'm talking about maybe I'm really actually pretty dumb or maybe I'm just drunk but listen to me anyway because I'm going tell you it is my belief about how this poem is contradictory but it's still great! When you read it in this perspective you may become a little skeptical on this particular "belief". What if the author is an amazing poet and had a purpose and intended to write in this particular way and is actually not even contradictory? How do we even know because after all we are basing it off this "belief" sounds kinda silly…

Now to attack this type of question it is imperative you know what type of answer you're looking for so you can easily eliminate the wrong answer choices. A. not correct the argument never talks about what different readers will usually do. That choice is out. B. Primary idea or many ideas does not touch the argument. Read the stimulus again if you're considering this…writer wouldn't intend a great poem to communicate contradictory ideas. This is quite different. C. Agree? Disagree? whatever not the point. D. What? This doesn't have to be true at all. The argument will still work. E. Works perfectly. If we negate it then it means if the reader is wrong then the whole argument doesn't work at all. If the idea isn't even part of the poem how can even begin to connect the two premises and conclusion? Just try it and I think and you'll agree.

The stimulus suggests that because the highway speed limit was implemented and there happened to be less accidents occurred at the same time that it is fair to conclude that reduction of speed caused a reduced accident rate. This type of flaw is that correlation does not imply causation. Our goal here is to weaken this argument by introducing a new alternative hypothesis which in terms will aid us to finding the right answer. The reason I found this problem difficult was not for the concept or stimulus but the number of attractive answer choices. However, it's imperative to know that one answer choice will weaken the argument and the others will not. If you're going to attempt to weaken the argument introducing an idea that suggests why correlation does not equal causation will certainly keep you more focused in finding the solution that we're looking for. With the right idea in place let's see if any of the answer apply…

A. The problem with this answer choice is before is just not relevant. Either way one could argue how this answer choice if anything strengthens the argument by saying cars went faster. B. All accidents? I thought we were discussing highway accidents? This statement could be true without even remotely weakening the argument. C. This does not weaken our argument. This statement can be true. The lower speed limit still might have made highways safer. Not what we are looking for. D. Exactly what we are looking for. This idea helps weaken the argument because maybe it had nothing to do with speed limit that decreased the accident rate. Really many many competing ideas that may explain why the highway speed limit did not cause reduced accident rates could work. What if there was construction there for like 10 years so people had to be more careful? What if their was other government regulations requiring people to drive safer? What if the highway just always had police so people drove slow so they wouldn't get a ticket? I could go on forever. But I think you get the point. E. Looks attractive but we're a talking about accidents not injuries our job is stay on topic. Hopefully this information will help someone. Thanks for reading!

When paying attention between the dialogue occurring between David and Carla the response David provides may throw us off a little (just as most flawed questions should). In the sense that didn't Carla just say that? If we are critical about what is being said here you may wonder, "was David even listening?" The goal to this type of problem if not so easily seen at first is to deconstruct Carla's argument. She provides two premises and one conclusion. The conclusion is stated then support follows. She says professors should get paid leaves of absence so they do can research. Now here comes the support: (don't miss this like David did) research not only 1. helps human knowledge but also 2. keeps their teachings up to date. Now, as mentioned earlier David responds, research is nice but why allow professors to take time off teaching? hmmm….really? Let's find the answer. A? yup! Exactly the issue here. Read it a few times and it may become seem super obvious and you might want to hit David as well. B. Nope, he actually considers the possibility of research being beneficial. C. Tax money? Bad connection. He doesn't make any claim about the source of the funding. D. He doesn't make this claim that research is the only function of paid leave absence. E. Vacations? I thought we were talking about paid leaves of absence.

A. is the answer.

The first step is to find the two premises here which the first suggest criminals want to make profit and and second is biotech and IT is promised to make enormous profits. Now let's find the conclusion: therefore, criminals will want to be involved in biotech and IT. At this point you may realize that this argument is just plain horrible. It's like I'm a criminal that steals cars for a living then sell them but I just found out these lawyers are about to make lots of money with all these new cases going on. Well guess I need to be a lawyer now so I can make that upcoming money too. Wait...what? That's basically as valid as the argument in the stimulus which happens to be not valid not all. So the job here is to find something that makes this argument air-tight. You want it to be absolutely valid. A broad generalization like anyone that is looking for money will capitalize on all money being made would allow this argument to be valid. This is a sufficient condition that allows the argument to be properly drawn aka our job. Now to the answers with this all in mind... A. Doesn't really help justify this argument. B. Well just because you're aware doesn't mean you're suddenly going to be rich and more to point will not make you be involved in Biotech or IT. Sorry, not even close. C. Wait, if I'm already done then what's the point of expanding? Nope. D. This is perfect because it can applied as the sufficient condition and the argument can now be properly inferred. If my purpose is to make money then I will try to be involved in any technological revolution (biotech and IT) so I can try to generate enormous profits. Makes sense, right? E. Sufficiently profitable? Misses the point entirely. D is the best answer.

We are looking to find support for the statements in the stimulus. There are two ideas here: being concerned for the environment and profitability. To answer this question the best answer choice should provide a complete illustration from that facts we have been given. Before we look at the answer choice briefly attempt to conceptualize the two ideas here and picking the answer choice will become easier. I personally found that understanding that the farmers concern about environmental conditions and making the improvements helped profits as well seemed to be a bit unusual but still gave a direction to where I should look for in the answer choices. I simply needed to find an answer choice that matches these statements best. A. Is easily eliminated because the knowledge is not relevant here. B. Matches pretty well what I gathered from in the passage. Seems a bit awkward at first but works really well with what I thought about before even looking at the answer choices. C. Totally irrelevant. D. Is not what the passage is implying. E. It can easy to pick the wrong choice such as "E" because it seems to be an attractive answer however, it is important to stay on task. It is an assumption to use the word "key" to maximize profits. Nowhere in the passage is this illustrated by the dairy farmer's statements. Totally a trap answer in my opinion since it sounds really good but ultimately, does not do the job for our specific task.

While reading the stimulus the goal is to find the flaw. There are three premises here that are all correlations. A correlation is a connection between two or more things. Yet, the stimulus concludes with a cause. The problem we identify here is that this is simply JUST a connection. Not necessarily a causation. There could be easily be other factors. The key is seeing that the conclusion states: Business schools can promote. That should instantly raise flags. These three statements that happen to be correlations suddenly is sufficient to conclude that business schools now can promote? Nope, correlation never equals causation!! The answer choice C perfectly describes what we are looking for.

The critical work here involves identifying the discrepancy. The only way to do that is by understanding what's wrong with the support and conclusion. Why did MetroBank decrease by the end of the five-year term if they were all graduated payment plans? The answer is subtly hinted in the stimulus where it talks about a particular range of loans. The solution could pertain to maybe it was these larger loans that were paid off i.e., $100,000 ones opposed to the $1,000 which could completely wreck the average and possibly solve the apparent discrepancy. With this information in mind looks for the answer that solves this discrepancy. It's important to remember what the discrepancy is that we are solving for because most the answer choices here are NOT directly related to the particular discrepancy we are looking for. A. says small companies…wrong. B. says borrow from other banks? Nope, does not explain the decreased trend. C. Doesn't explain what we are looking for either. D. Is exactly what was predicted as a possibility so keep it. E. Decrease slightly over the term does not solve our discrepancy. D. is the best choice.

There are two premises followed with a conclusion here. The support considers two factors: One being the drug having no effect on viruses and two it may possess dangerous side effects which results with the conclusion that doctors should never prescribe antibiotics to treat colds. Keeping the support in mind and following the flow of the argument you want to take note the two claims of support we have here that guides us with the underlying principle. Our job is to adhere to these two claims as closely as possible. Immediately reading answer choice A hints that doctor should abide very closely to the same principles found in the stimulus. Quickly read the remaining answer choices just in case and you'll agree that A is the best answer choice. The only one that works.

You guys really should focus on reading comprehension on the lsat not the economist unless you simply enjoying reading it. I am actually holding off reading any economist until after I've taken the lsat. Think about there is a plethora of rc passages with questions! Have you done all of them? If yes, then I guess go ahead and read up and if you haven't then know you're just wasting your time reading something that is not the LSAT. Great it has complex argument similar to the LSAT but it's simply not the LSAT. Do it on your own time if you actually enjoy it for fun but don't do replace with it rc passages. Thats just my advice. Almost a little off topic but just want you guys to be aware in case you're under the assumption you need to read the economist in order to well on reading comp.

Clarity of thinking and confidence are the key factors you need that you might lose in burning out.

I am looking for a study partner as well. My goal above a 170. Not quite as high as yours but I am a very serious studier looking to improve as much as I can for test day. We can exchange ideas and help each other. Email me at Bluegrace17@.com

Thanks

Coffee lol? Weird. But I like your other suggestions.

I picked B and got it wrong. I understand why I got it wrong but I'm puzzled by the video because I feel like you eliminated B for the wrong reason. I think the right reason is because it does not explain why we shouldn't use it. The answer doesn't say bug zappers is harmful maybe bug zappers and bug X could work together. For example I might use multiple products to receive the most benefits. However, we know most pest control experts advise against using bug zappers. Period.

Yes, it is much harder than the act/sat. It is after all, a graduate program and it is assumed you have a 4 year degree since that is a perquisite for law school.

I basically br the whole test too. It takes forever. Hopefully, I can learn from my mistakes so I don't have to keep BRing the whole test every time!

We take the premises (not conclusions) as face value not the stimulus.