i chose D, kinda because i attributed them not talking about the new realms for women as them prioritizing the topics concerning regional life. i feel as this is an similar logical jump that one must do in determining that the term 'misguided' is not strictly talking about the prenotions and conceptualizations that the author does not talk about in relation to the local colorists.

i do not like the idea that because 350 is a lower limit of the transition range that the upper bound is hundreds higher. i get its the most supported and im still 100% wrong for choosing the wrong answer but damn.

got it right in 38 seconds.. but the idea that i should be getting a question like this right in 39 or so seconds is comparable to waterboarding.

i am a baited one. sucks to suck.

someone previously mentioned getting rid of E because they saw the kayapo in the answer. i also saw that use of a direct link to the passage as too much, as the kayapo are just an example of how Turner affirms FG point.

i did all of my low res summmaries then read JY's takes- i never would have gotten the concept that the author was actually speaking in P4- not sure if thats my lack of being locked in/reading too fast/ RC naivety but i only could have gotten this question right if i understood that the author was speaking... scary because unlike some of LR , RC has a compounding effect- if you miss something "small" like a few words of the last paragraph that are actually huge to the passage as a whole you will probably get at least 2-3 questions wrong: MP, Implied (on what the author thinks), and maybe an LR question related to the authors views. RC is much easier for me in the sense that reading and taking notes is something ive always done- but will definitely have to get better at analyzing words as to not miss concepts.

a harder one because for me i knew the stimulus was playing on a negation of a necessary assumption sorta thing. i immediately diagram in my head and found that

a->b

c-> / b 

would be the way i would structure this question.

my first question of the day as well so maybe just trying to get the juices flowing again as well.

didnt really do active reading the first time reading the stimulus (lazy)- you see that "must" in the conclusion.

B seems alright in a shallow dip as did A. everything else kinda sucks. took alot of time diagramming a and b in super specific and abstract language, good for mastery but sucks for timing. got to the end of diagramming B and realized that "might" seriously ruins that answer and leaves A as the winner.

(commenting before watching)n148 comments... not sure why because that feels more than average. maybe people are happy with getting these ideas. interested to see how the LSAT can play around with sufficiency and necessity concepts in these types of questions. can they if placement doesnt matter? in my blind review i ddove deep into D and E and not only does D provide cocnepts in the sufficient that are unlike the stimulus (auto mechanics are inherently mechanics, there exists a subset/superset relationship by the abstractness of language) but also D uses three differing concepts in the necessary.

E makes a little better on both of these by making companies the conceptual focus point and eliminating the differences in the quantity and variety of the necessary placements.

Commenting because, like many others, NA was/is a difficult concept for me. The analysis of the “one vs. multiple responsibilities” perspective wasn’t something I initially considered when reviewing this paragraph. I do try to practice NA whenever I can now (lol), but I’m still wondering how to spot that relationship in real time—specifically, how to recognize when a stimulus is assuming total fault rather than partial fault. Is this mostly a matter of doing more reps and asking myself what relationships exist within the paragraph, or should I be paying closer attention to certain parts of the stimulus, like the beginning or the conclusion?

I usually take a long time on questions, but this one threw me for a loop. When we just worked on very formal logic training regarding PSA/Principle, this one was a mess. I diagrammed and looked at Some Before All and Most Before All. I finally got the answer right due to hunting for my answer and finding, via grammar parsing, that every other answer choice was dumb.

This might not be an accurate question, or a question at all, but I thought to myself after two minutes that I should be diagramming, then diagrammed for a minute, and stared at my diagram for 30 minutes trying to put puzzle pieces together for some form of a logical argument I could make.

I realized that the stimulus gives me an easy out, that if both pools contain the same amount of stuff, then the pool that contains the more water (or more etching tools that act as engraving tools) then logically it follows that more etching tools will be used as engraving tools than not. Yea, just giving my feedback on this question that was superbly tough for me.

@Sagacious_Saxon0424 I believe I put the same answer as you and OP—framing the comparison around their ability to detect planets outside their solar system. But after watching the explanatory video and thinking on it more, I realize that “detecting planets outside the solar system” is actually more of a conclusion we draw from the level of sophistication of each instrument.

In other words, the real point of comparison in the stimulus seems to be how sophisticated the instruments are—not directly their ability to detect planets. That ability is just evidence of one being more advanced than the other. Definitely a subtle distinction, but a helpful one for these kinds of comparative reasoning questions.