I missed this because in my mind, "scientific anomaly" was the hypothesis/new idea that the author explains.

But the "anomaly" is that death-causing pathogens can achieve evolutionary success - the hypothesis is the "explanation" for the anomaly.

I had to completely guess on this one, I did not understand the stimulus at all.

Take away: when I'm having trouble understanding stimulus specifics, I should try to think about the stimulus more abstractly:

1. I don't need the first two sentences at all, focus on the second two sentences

2. It is surprising that data correction favors Jones' Theory

3. Jones' Theory predicts that corrected data would be more correct

Answer should be something that explains why scientists would keep more data that favors Jones' theory over data that conflicts with Jones' theory (B!)

I didn't understand the information about the crystallization at all. But I knew that Professor Robinson was arguing that the crater did NOT cause the distinction. So his argument CANNOT depend on the crater being big enough to cause the extinction

I almost didn't choose B because any answer choice with "some" is typically not a good weakener/strengthener. But this is the only answer choice that weakens the link between the lack of a word for "sea" and living in a cold climate.

Take away: answer choices with "some" can occasionally be the correct weakener

@jjq0315ovo yep same :(

I am currently in the middle of my admissions counsulting. I am very impressed by the process. It is incredibly thorough and well thought out. I am under the LSAT and GPA median for my goal school. If I get in, I think it wil be entirely because of the consulting.

During timed take I tried to force "visual arts" to include writing because you read words with your eyes LOL

A is also wrong because of "first work of fiction". The passage says Morrison is the first author to draw upon musical genre as the structuring principle for an entire novel - we don't know about other works of fiction.

Crazy question. Fantastic explanation by Kevin.

Of course I was lost on this question, but I knew that the conclusion depended on the beliefs of "medieval epistemologists".

If we can't classify who "medieval epistemologists" are, then the argument falls apart

I also took issue with "much". But this is a most strongly supported question, not a must-be-true question. E is the answer choice most strongly supported by the passage

I got this right but spent 03:22 on it.

E is right because if diets in the US are worse for childre, this would be an alternative explanation. E tells us this is not the case, so it elminates an alternative explanation - strengthening the argument

@mikeross-jr I had the same thought. But I guess if something is killed, then it must be harmed. So if we know it must be true that liming can be effective after harm, then it must also be effective after "killed"

Completely guessed on 27 but got it right. I chose D because it of the word "defend". We are wanting to defend agains the spread of thistles.

Support: animals signaling eachother with sounds/gestures does not prove that animals possess the ability to use those sound/gestures to refer to contract objects or abstract ideas

Conclusion: this does not confirm the thesis that animals possess language

Why C is wrong: the zoologist is not denying that animals are referring to concrete objects, just that there's not proof that they are

D is correct because no expression referring to concrete objects = no proof.

Conclusion: Environmental factors have little effect on teenagers participating in sports

Support:

1. common for just 1 teenager to participate enthusiastically

2. school programs are ineffective

A - this strengthens the argument - ability is not an environental factor (nature not nurture)

B - this strengthens the argument - showing teenagers are innately attracted to sports even despite parents disinterest (nature not nurture)

C - we're talking about teenagers enthuasiam, adult's doesn't matter

E - this strengthens the argument, showing environmental factors like school programs don't work

D is the only answer that shows that teenagers are probably affected by environmental factors that vary from different times and cultures

Support:

1. studies shows weekend days are cloudier than weekdays (showing 7 day cycle patterns)

2. human activity has a 7 day cycle

3. there are few natural 7 day cycles

Conclusion: human activity is responsible for the cloudy weekends

I originally chose A, but this wrong because we don't need to assume that industrial activity is causing the cloudy days, it could be any human activity

E is right because the author is using the lack of natural 7 day cycles to account for the 7 day patterns occuring

We need to strengthen the link between support and conclusion.

Conclusion: rubbish tells us relatively little about the possessions

Support: pits have been subject to erosion/destruction

B strengthens this argument, the pits have been scavenged and destroyed

I realize that when I first read this during timed conditions, I thought the critic's conclusion was that the Traintrack inn is not popular becaues the food is ordinary. That is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that we can know the food is ordinary because the location is convenient.

How can we come to this conclusion? Only if the business would have no reason to have very good food. They would have no reason to have very good food if a business will only improve its products if it needs to do so to attract customers.

For weaken questions, we need to weaken the link between the stimulus' support and conclusion.

Support: early jazz improv did not stray away from melodies on which it was based

Conclusion: later music that strays too far from melody should not be classified as jazz

D best weakens this conclusion, saying even though there may be improvisation, it still has so much more in common with early jazz than any other type of music.

"Influenced" in B makes that answer not strong enough. Rap can be influenced by jazz, it doesn't make it jazz

I'm 32! It's really comforting to me to go read Reddit threads about people who started law school later in life. The feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

Even after law school, you'll probably still have at least 35 years of working before you retire. Do you want to spend THIRTY-FIVE years in a career you don't want? Think of how much success you can have in law in that time.

I had trouble with these until I started "reading for the thesis". I actively try to find the thesis/hypothesis of the passage when I start reading. Once I've found what I think it is, I continue to read the passage trying to tie each paragraph back to that thesis. It helps me keep track of the author's perspective.

I also highlight author's attitude words/sentences. For example if the author calls something "compelling" or "impressive"

Spent 03:32 deciding between B and D.

Takeaway: just concluding for or against an argument is not a general principle

I had no idea how C could be related to calendars, but I chose it because it was the only answer choice with the same premise that humans have chosen some kind of arbitrary system to base conclusions on

@CheyenneChang my thoughts exactly