So for the record, Passage B is actually well-written, persuasive, and lucid. Hate to break it to you kiddos.

I agree that (A) is the better answer, and I was originally going to choose it before going with (E) for the reason that student mentioned. So this is something that needs to be elaborated in the curriculum. When it talks about how to identify the main point in problem passages, it gives no nuance and makes it sound formulaic that if the author proposes a solution, that's the point of a passage.

I would have disputed this question with LSAC tbh.

As others have pointed out, mentioning the treaty in and of itself doesn't really have anything to do with explaining the evolution of laws relating to traditional handicrafts (as supposed by (E)). The paragraph may be trying to do that, but bringing up the treaty doesn't accomplish this, not even rhetorically — and we're not asked about the paragraph. No mention is made of Alaska Natives vis-à-vis the 1910 Fur Seal Treaty.

Further, "demonstrating a precedent," as stated in (C), doesn't necessarily imply that it's being used by the author to argue a point. I think you could conceivably interpret "demonstrating" as meaning something similar to "explaining."

Finally, this question doesn't indicate that the correct answer might just be the closest out of five less than ideal answers. Instead, it asks us to say which answer primarily explains the mention of the treaty.

In (C), you could quibble with the fact that the treaty is said to be "well-known," but I don't think that's a worse offense than (E) commits in imputing handicrafts to a treaty that is not said to have mentioned them.

Gotta give them props, they’ve really done a good job with the UI since this video was made

Especially for essays, can an applicant still be competitive even if they don’t have a really dramatic story that ties into law, or if you don’t have any experience directly related to law? What can be good ways to frame your story if you don’t have “exciting” experiences?

An aurora borealis...localized entirely within the Mendels' farm?

May I see it?

I found this question exceptionally difficult. I would appreciate an updated explanation video, as the current one flies through it in five minutes or so.

In particular, I didn't interpret the first sentence merely as context, but as part of the argument. How do you know it's not part of the argument here?

Additionally, the explanation for why (A) is wrong — that it talks about "reasonability," whereas the stimulus just says "it is best" — is unconvincing for me. Considering that this doesn't have to be a perfectly airtight valid argument, it seems like saying that "it is best = reasonable" is a fair assumption to make.

Others explained in the comments that (C) is the right answer because its necessary condition is the only one that matches up with the conclusion, i.e., the necessary condition of the whole argument. But I'm having trouble replicating that logic for myself.

The emphasis on analogy in the lessons has been overdone, and it's tripped me up.

I get there's an analogy going on in this answer, but the right answer really didn't have so much to do with evaluating the similarities and differences of physics vs. biology, and the one with the diving mammals vs. ichthyosaurs also didn't hinge on the relationship between the two groups of animals.

So now I have to teach myself not to reflexively look for something that evaluates the analogy in the right answer just because there's an analogy at play in the passage. It's making me look for the wrong things.

What pisses me off about this one is that it talks about the concentration in the soil. But are we talking about the concentration of the chemical after application? Are we talking about naturally occurring forms of the molecule already in the soil?

I'm also having an issue with the site randomly choosing to refresh, except for me, it happens frequently when I'm watching a video. Perhaps similarly, when I open up a page (usually from when my laptop was sleeping), the page is unresponsive for several seconds, so I'll click "Start" on a drill but either clicking won't do anything, or it's delayed by several seconds.

FWIW: Shakespeare's actors and other contemporaries did not, in fact, have full scripts. They had cheat sheets with their lines on it, and I believe it came with cues (so, for example, a few words from Gertrude before Hamlet's line, in the case of Hamlet's cheat sheet).

I was between C and D and went with D. I don't like that the explanation for D was so short, because that was so much closer to being a valid inference than A, B, or E were. D should have gotten much more scrutiny about what exactly makes the slight inaccuracy of that one worse than the slight inaccuracy of C.

(For non-classical music fans, the "many critics" are, in fact, right in this case.)

Using A and B as symbols when we're talking about Jedi (J), Dooku (D), and the Force (F) — not helpful. It's not illustrating the English sentence at that point because I can't map what A and B are referring to.

Tip: Treat each one of the original statements as something that somebody you hate just told you. You want to prove them wrong. How would you respond to prove them wrong?

Also, I found I had more success just using words for this instead of lawgic.

Most Progressive Instructor Ever? Kevin Has Apparently Never Read or Seen 'Harry Potter'

J.Y.'s explanation for why (A) is wrong is not worded well. He makes it sound like A is wrong because the stimulus and the (A) are "about vastly different things," and that (A) is "meta" by talking about the logic of an argument. The implication that the correct answer should be specifically about the situation of the premier and cabinet, and not abstract.

In fact, answer (B) is an abstraction and is just as "meta," I think, as any of the other answers.

@kroper4 I came to the comments for the same thing. The opposite of /(trained) IS NOT (well-trained); on the contrary, per the lesson on distinguishing between opposites v. negations, the opposite of /(trained) would be merely (trained), which could mean (well-trained) but needn’t mean that by necessity.

I found these helpful for the negative comparisons (because of the fact that, e.g., if "A is no more [quality X] than B," then A can be equally [quality X] as B or less [quality X] than than B, but not more of a quality than B). Otherwise, though, I think this method is overcomplicating something that doesn't need it. I know how comparisons work.

I hate doing this on a laptop. I need to annotate things and cover up the answers so I'm not distracted, and it pisses me off that LSAC makes you take it digitally.

To those confused by "I'm hugging you because I miss you" — I was in the same boat, but after some Googling and thinking, I offer this explanation:

Every time you use "because," you're giving the reason for something happening, and that's obviously what we have in the hugging instance.

But take this sentence, "The dog is loose because the owner took off its leash." It also uses because in a way that gives the reason; just as in the hugging sentence, it's answering the question "why?" However, this time we're talking about the cause, not just the circumstances surrounding the event or the motivation.

It's a very fine distinction, but the "reason" for something is slightly different from the "cause" of something. As in the hugging example, the reason for doing something might just indicate intent, even if that intent doesn't lead in and of itself to anything physical or otherwise causal.

So, I would venture to say that all uses of "because" give a reason — but not all uses of "because" seek to explain causality as that reason. (The same way all circles are ovals, but not all ovals are circles.)