I got this right but I was unsure about the part of A that says "natural conditions". To me, it seemed like the stimulus was all about creating the right conditions, not taking advantage of conditions that happen naturally

Per JY’s explanation - where in the passage does it say that the literary establishment “prefers cosmopolitan themes over the agrarian themes of Mexican American writing”?

I read that:

1. “Literary reputation and success in Mexico...are often bestowed or denied by this literary establishment”

2. “Moreover, the work of Mexican writers is often longer in form and marked by greater cosmopolitanism”

Yes - the work of Mexican righters is more cosmopolitan. And yes - the literary establishment bestows success. But I am not reaading anything that says the establishment bestows success BECAUSE of the cosmopolitanism.

To me, this would only be implied. And I would argue that the same degree of assumption is required for answer choice C (that A predominant strength of Mexican American writers is that they are not tied to a major literary establishment and so are free to experiment in a way many Mexican writers are not)

Negation of A: Animals could make major changes in their behavior even if they are not capable of complex reasoning.

This negation does not affect the argument, because the support of the argument is that the reptiles cannot make major changes to their behavior.

An assumption about what it means if they CAN make major changes to their behavior does not matter

I got this right but was unsure about B. After reviewing, I see why B is incorrect.

If we negate B, the conclusion could still be true.

Answer choice B Negation: facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is almost always enhanced by expert knowledge of the machiens inner workings.

This doesn't affect the author's argument - the author is arguing that students don't need to be tech experts to be prepared for the future, what makes them tech experts doesn't matter.

Answer choice C Negation: most jobs in tomorrow's job market will demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use by experts.

If you negate this answer choice, then the author is incorrect about not needing tech skills more than verbal skills

I had a lot of trouble with this question. None of the answers seemed correct to me, when considering the logic applied to other LSAT questions

This requires us to assume that Loux wants exactly what her grandson wants? How can we possibly make that assumption? Just because she is fond of him, does not mean she wants him to get everything he desires.

I got the right answer but was a little stuck on D.

My thought was a bad economy could lead to more younger household workers needing to join the work force.

@AOnifade After re-reading, I believe A is incorrect because it is too broad, it is talking about ANY issue affecting public good, not just the sculpture

I believe a better explanation for B is that we can infer that nonagricultural goods became more popular as contributions, but we cannot infer that they were preferred

I got the right answer but I agree with other commenters - it is unclear that the author is optimistic. The author only shares other people's positions, not the author's own opinion.

I chose D because of the overall tone of the passage, but I am still unsure if that can be considered the author's true opinion

Got it right but it took me 10 minutes lol

1. If the decoys were good enough, it’s only natural that birds would be attracted to them. 

2. The tape plays copies of actual bird cries. It’s natural that birds could be fooled. 

3. CORRECT. There’s no reason that the animal would go near the object, unless the animal were attracted purely by heat. 

4. Same as A. If the replicas are good enough, it’s not surprising that fish are attracted to them. 

5. There’s nothing unusual about an animal being lured by meat. 

I crossed out D because it says "younger tribe members". I believe it only mentions younger tribe members when talking about the easy adoption of the Northern Ute's language.

It could be that many of the people learning the language are adults?

This took me some time to understand but this diagramming helped me:

Stimulus: bacilli and run down -> infection

Correct answer choice B: 6+ hours of sunlight a day and alkaline soil -> healthy

Incorrect answer choice E: chronically high blood pressure -> hypertensive

There's no second requirement to be considered hypertensive

I got this right but it took me 6 minutes and 42 seconds lol

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"?

@johnigarzabal722 SAME

#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 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?

@FearlessAnimatedThanks interesting thought. I'd love to know the answer

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.