I love that my first passage was about Asian American poetry from Hawaii, and my second passage was about Mexican American literature -- two kinda niche topics that I have spent extensive time reading/writing about. Thank you, LSAT RC section, for occasionally providing some fun reading material!

#feedback I think (C) might also be trading on the misunderstanding that community gardens =/= personal gardens, thus providing an alternative explanation for the phenomena (at least... that's how they got me). But even if that were true, it still wouldn't be the right answer because you'd need to make a lot of assumptions to connect "longer waiting lists" to "increase in seed sales." After all, people probably don't buy seeds just because they're on a waiting list for a garden; and even if they do, maybe the waiting lists are longer just because there are fewer community gardens available, not because more people want to join community gardens; etc...

#feedback Q09 in this section is the only question I've come across thus far in my studying that I still don't understand even after viewing the explanation and thinking it over myself. I feel like I must be missing something because I cannot figure out how we get from "the world of the story is self-sufficient and recognizably related to our own world" to "the world of the story resembles actual life," but the explanation video takes this equivalence for granted. I can see why A and C are bad answers, but not why they are substantially more bad than B, so I would be unable to choose between the three if I were to run into this question again. If anyone has any advice (either to explain the right answer, or elaborate more on why the wrong answers MUST be wrong so I can at least use POE), I would really appreciate it.

"zombie horror rom-com" so... Warm Bodies (2013) dir. Levine

I got this question right, but I wasn't sure why it was right other than a "feeling." I really think this explanation clarifies things.

(A)'s first premise is a statement comparing one thing to itself, but the first premise should be making a general comparison between all things in the category. Henrietta may very well be wiser at 30 than 4, but perhaps her daughter had more "wisdom points" to start out with, so her 4-year-old-daughter is still wiser than her. One way to "fix" (A) would be to say, "The older a person is, the wiser the person is."

The way I was thinking about (D) was similar but a little different to this explanation.

The second part of the sentence ("a reasonable person in her position would have assumed...") is about a hypothetical reasonable person who did not read the contract thoroughly, i.e. is "in Cecilia's position." That's essentially just saying "If a reasonable person did NOT read the contract thoroughly, then they would assume..." but of course we have no way of knowing if the contract was written in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't actually read it thoroughly. All we know is what would happen if they didn't read it thoroughly, but that's not really helpful or relevant because it may very well be that the contract was written in such a way that every reasonable person would read it thoroughly.

Another aspect of why (E) is wrong is that it is an incorrect reading of what the passage says. The passage says "it is not necessary for logicians to be logical in their discussions of logic," but the answer choice just says "it is not necessary for logicians to be logical to be competent to discuss logic," seemingly implying that there is some more general standard or characteristic, "being logical," that then in turn is needed to competently discuss logic. That is not the same as what the passage is saying, which is that you actually do not even need to be logical in the discussion of logic, let alone be logical in general.

Will these kinds of "weaken" questions sometimes include a correct answer that simply does contradict or undermine a stated premise? Or will answers that appear to do that always be incorrect?

The reason I ask is because I think from what I can remember about the couple prep tests I took, these kinds of questions usually just have some claims you must take to be true, and then use more language like "this must mean" or "this suggests" to present the passage's hypothesis/conclusion. It would be great if I could be reasonably certain that any answer choice appearing to contradict/undermine one of those premise claims is wrong right off the bat.