This is my dumbed-down version that helped me :)

P1:

low res- phenomenon about kinglets

P2:

low res- 1st reason mystery, tiny size but still hot

P3:

low res- 2nd reason mystery, diet of insects/tiny tummy

P4:

low res- 2 partial explanations, storing fat and cuddling

Main Point: Don't really know how kinglets survive in the extreme could, have two hypo's that could explain it (storing fat and cuddling)

What we're reading is Chopin's perspective but the author is telling us what that perspective is. I normally try to look at the wording in the passage. I've seen some that say "My view is this" or "I believe this way because" or like this passage "Chopin feels this way" and so. When Kevin says we're getting Chopin's view from the author's perspective that's just basically saying "This is what the author is reporting to us and they're doing it in this way", here being a neutral way. If that makes sense.

I haven't cried yet over the lsat or even a prep test. This passage was the break in that streak.

I never leave feedback but I have to say. I knew it was C, thought I clicked C, but actually clicked B. Didn't even notice in the blind review and was so confused on why I got it wrong when I knew C was the answer. I think my brain melted and then reformed again :)

At the beginning of passage 4 the author gives his perspective saying "but the economist position does not hold up under careful scrutiny"

-if we look at the low res. summary of passage 3, we see that the economists say that the CEO needs to look for maximum profit, and while CEO's look for maximum profit they are also serving the public good. That's the position the author is talking about in passage 4.

Passage 2 low res. summary was that the corporations responsibility is based on the individual (aka the CEO's)

Looking back at the authors' perspective we can make the connection that CEO's obligation effect the responsibility of the corporation. Their legal obligation to maximize profits doesn't free them of their moral obligation/responsibility to make sure their actions are still for the public good.

Passage 2 is the key to understanding the CEO's "make up" the corporations and the corporations responsibilities.

I hope that was easy to understand lol.

I look at it based on the formula. So if it's /REC-->/Z we learned that it's always sufficient-->necessary so it would still be the same as saying not having the market crash is the sufficient condition and the zombies not attacking is the necessary condition. Compared to the beginning of Z-->REC, zombies being sufficient condition and real estate market crashing as necessary. Following the formula is easiest I think.

I think the concept is to understand what the sentence is SAYING. I've had some where I word it differently but I basically came to the same conclusion they came to. I understand it just like they want me to I just got there from a different path than they did.

I'm also having issues. Like for number 5 I had used the comparison to "not very cold days" when it should have been "now". I feel like those "explicit" ones could be subjective? Technically couldn't I have still been right saying "not very cold days" instead of "now"??? It makes sense to me on some questions then on others I don't understand.

I think of it as "does this make sense based on the argument" or thinking "could this inference be made solely based on the argument." or looking for holes in the assumption compared to the argument. with the trash bin one it would be labeled as unreasonable since there are so many factors that could happen besides mr fat cat eating the trash. but with the tiger example its reasonable to state tigers are mammals based on the inferences in the argument.