I still don’t thoroughly understand why I got this one incorrect. But I believe part of it was misinterpreting this part of the prompt: "given the information in the passage" - I took this to mean that I should look for an answer that aligns with what the author's main point/perspective is. When I believe what it means is: "only considering the facts provided by the passage" ????

If I got this question right and was very sure of my answer, do you think it's best to accept my thinking is correct and move on to the next question? Or should I still watch the video analysis of the question/answers?

Is there a way to see our total time vs. total goal time for a passage/question set?

I confused "probably" in the question with meaning "implied" and chose the answer that seemed the most IMPLIED by the author, as opposed to stated. Which is silly because "stated" is in the question.

I also remembered the sentence about jurors incorrectly. I thought I remembered that the author said the jurors wanted to solidify their position EARLY. She only said that they want to solidify their position. The word "early" was in reference to the lawyers framing.

"Military" ambitions does not make much sense to me. We know Agamemnon desires a victorious battle, but we don't know that it is because of military ambition? Maybe it is because he does not want his people to suffer? Or any other of the many reasons to not want to lose a battle?

But I guess the other answers are untrue because of how explicit they are - "identical" and "solely" and "only"

#feedback "Fact v. Belief. v. Knowledge Link" is still not working. It seems that it has not been working for months

Does "reasoning" not mean "premises" in this context? 

We've eliminated so many answer choices in the past for being "too extreme" compared to the author's perspective. I am surprised that labeling propagandists as literally extreme when it's not stated by the author is considered the correct choice

I read "proponents" in answer choice A as referring to the other passage/the other perspective - Passage A being a rival appraoch to Passage B and vice versa

I over thought this and chose C. My thought was the two passages are not answering how historians should avoid bias, but disagreeing on the DEFINITION of bias (objectivity) so B did not sound correct to me.

I remembered "relativist historians" in Passage A and thought that Passage B would advocate for a relativist historian's approach more than Passage A - but this is not clearly stated or even implied in Passage B. Passage B does not use the word "relativist" at all, so I should have eliminated that answer.

I missed this because of my definition of "takes for granted". I used the definition of "fail to properly appreciate"

So answer choice B as, "The argument fails to properly appreciate that something cannot be the goal of an action performed unless the action will in fact achieve that goal"

But the author is actually "appreciating" this invalid argument.

I wonder if the LSAT meaning for "takes for granted" is always "assume"?