Even though the author spends a lot of the passage talking about whether The London Pianoforte school should be considered a "school", and this is an alternative theory to Ringer, this is not the primary concern of the passage.

Half of the passage (paragraphs 1 and 2) are only about Temperley's contribution, and the discussion about Ringer/school theory is just to highlight another contribute of Temperley's - the "sensible approach to define the school by the period"

Changed my answer from E to D in the last 10 seconds >:(

We have no way of knowing if any other authors attempted new editions. Maybe they attempted and the editions just weren't published?

I missed 3 in this section, and all in the first passage

For main point questions - I'm focusing too much on the last paragraph and ending statements and not enough on the entire passage

Paragraph 1 is about the gap of knowledge

Paragraph 2 is about how Temperley's new edition fills that gap

Paragraph 3&4 talk about the School, but the passage is rounded out in that Temperley made good contributions in the anthology

Picked C on my first take, and then picked it again weeks later when reviewing.

C is wrong because the critics conclusion is just the fact that there is a distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction.

"When we evaluate a work principally for its themes and ideas, we cut ourselves off from the work's emotional impact" describes the implications of what happens when readers read for the purpose of making the distinction. It is not an implication of there being a distinction at all.

Takeaway: remember that the conclusion may not always be listed last! Pay attention to indicator words like "since"

Takeaway: a rule always has some exceptions. Highlighting an exception to a rule doesn't weaken the rule for regular circumstances, so it's not the best choice as a weakener. Choose the answer choice what would apply to the broadest set of circumstances

ChatGPT's explanation helped me a lot here:

Think about other areas:

• People disagree about whether a legal argument is strong.

• People disagree about whether a student deserves an A.

• People disagree about whether a house is worth $500,000.

Yet in each case there may still be objective criteria; people may simply be applying those criteria incorrectly or differently.

I thought A was just irrelevant to the question at hand. But I now see that it actually contributes to the confusion because of "fatal". If the diseaseas are fatal before heart problems set in, then small rats are going to die before they get heart problems. So it makes even less sense that small rats are twice as likely to have heart problems

Takeaway: be wary of any conclusion based on "belief" or "feeling"

During my timed take, I knew D was right but I couldn't fully explain to myself why B was not as strongly supported

If we don't know the rate at which something is growing or sinking, then we don't know how its size compares at the beginning vs. the end

I was afraid of answer choice D because the answer to flaw questions is so rarely ad hominem. Takeaway: the answer choice can infact be ad hominem occasinally!

Spent a lot of time on this question because the answer choice felt too simple. Takeaway: an answer is not wrong because it feels too easy

The stimulus' conclusion is based on responses to hypothetical dilemmas. But what if children display a much higher level or moral reasoning of real life dilemmas. This would undermine the conclusion that children aren't capable of moral reasoning

A key word in answer chioce B is "original". The stimulus tells us body temperature can be estimated by oxygen isotopes. But we don't know if the isoptopes change over millions of years since the dinosaurs were alive

Very, very doable. But it will most likely require a lot of study time per day.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think four hours a day for 7+ month is probably unsunstainable. I would start with 2 hours a day. Slow and steady is the best pace for LSAT learning

Highlighting another comment that helped me:

The question stem does not ask what makes the argument wrong, it asks what makes the argument vulnerable to criticism.

Hypocrisy does not necessarily make an argument incorrect, but it certainly makes it more vulnerable to critism

Under timed conditions I really didn't understand the stimulus but I was able to get the right answer through process of elimination

A: the stimulus doesn't mention individuals at all

B: the stimulus doesn't mention written materials at all

C: stimulus DOES mention values of the culture, and narratives = folktales

D: the stimulus doesn't mention basic themes and features of the human condition

E: the stimulus doesn't mention children at all

Somehow managed to only miss one for this set when I had absolutely no idea what either passage was saying

I read "sandstorm" as "landslide" in the question stem TWICE, during timed and in blind review :(

@ktacklesthelsat thank you for sharing! What's the best way to get in contact with Scott to schedule tutoring?

@mar765 same :(

C makes more sense if reword it like this: If we take any chess-playing program (bad, good, or excellent) and put it on a faster computer then it has a better chance at winning than it would on a slower computer.

This is supported by the stimulus

Premise: 1. Readers cannot enter the world of the novelist's mind unless they experience the world through the moral perspective of the novel's characters

Premise 2: contemporary novelists aren't showing the readers their world through the moral perspective of their characters - they are instead just writing sensationalistic stuff (plot driven, not morals driven)

Conclusion: there is little social significance in contemporary novels

We need a link between:

• novelists' not allowing readers to enter the novelists world

• social significance

E gives us that link

I chose C because it was the only answer that really seemed to support there being no shortage of scientists/engineers, but I didn't really understand the link between the premises and conclusion.

Little upward pressure on salaries = no salary increase, no increase in demand - which means no lack of supply

Unemployment is as high as any other field = unemployment is not lower than other fields/unemploymet is normal = no lack of supply of scientists/engineers

Now that I understand the premises, I know that B almost weakens the argument. There's no increased prospect of financial success for engineers/scientists (no upward pressure on salaries)