In your illustration, say in the 2nd group in which 10 people preffered spark cola, when tested with one of the other competing sodas in another group, 4 preferred spark cola to that competing soda. Is that possibilty the argument fallaciously didn't address?

ANSWER CHOICE D

Say the scientiests did know abou the 1997 drought in the tropics. Would this answer still be wrong. Can u say in this situation in which there are many causal components: 1. airpolluction -c- 2) intense global warming -c- 3). intense El Nino - c- 4) inenstiy of drought in tropics, that airpollution is RESPONSIBLE for the intense forest fires. Its seems a contributing factor but not the sole cause. ??

D misses the mark in forgetting to address the very relevant part of the conclusion which speaks of actually laughing as opposed to just a tendency to laugh.

I thought on question 27, passage A accounted for the loopholes and deductions (27 Answer choice B) by saying "complexity" of tax code (L 25, Passage A). It was not my understanding that A was saying it was the graduated progressive nature of the tax code that allowed the high-income earners to avoid certain taxes. I didn't see "complexity (L25)" here as implying"graduated progressive." I thought this was an independent idea from the graduated system and that this could be veryy possibly contain the idea of loopholes and deductions talked about in answer choice 27 (B). This would thus make answer choice B a weak reubtal to passage A. I thought 25 Answer choice (A) was saying....okay, in addition to the wealthy losing access to loopholes in your system (flat tax rate system) and according to passage B's author - paying a lesser tax rate- the wealthy could even additionally hide their income, paying even less taxes out..... a fine rebuttal? Idk.

QUESTION 3

I thought this was little tricky. Initially, the only thing i could think of that would take a long time in the author's plans was the maintenance burns. But maintaining seems to suggest that you have already met a decent amount of your "intended effects (answer choice C), making the first part of answer choice (C), in my mind, weakly supported. However, the "selective harvesting" aspect of the author's plan ( L45) could conceivably take a decent amount of time. Originally it was difficult for me to explicitly mark out the various parts of the author's plans given the foreign nature of this material. I now see it is 1) Selective Harvesting; 2) Prescribed Fire Management; 2b/3) Maintenance burns. Selective Harvesting gives much support to the first part of answer choice (C) than I believe the "maintenance" burns do. The second part of answer choice (C) is fine.

my problem with 17 D was I didn't see how doctors unwavering opinions in a clinical research program could actively violate theoretical equipoise? To violate it wouldn't they have to continue in the study allowing certain patients to get the medication they thought less of? I didn't see how an unchanged opinion could alone violate a theoretical standard? I was between B and D. I chose B b/c at least it talked about omission of an action the doctors took; not merely talked about their thoughts they had..

I chose C on the actual test, PT and BR. I thought it was fairly obvious if the government can't determine whether citizens have majority ownership, it violates the requirement that it must ensure the citizens will have majority ownership.

But C never says the government will sell the company to World Oil. It's just a bidder.

Does the conclusion draw a causation? I think it's just a correlation between aging and pineal gland not working well.

I chose D. I was trying to explain how in the world people can have fairly accurate belief about society if they don't look at statistical info, even if they are not misled by anecdotes.

The answer choice wants to know why people aren't fools if they are so interested in anecdotes, while I was trying to answer how people can be smart if they don't pay attention to statistical info. I missed the tension. I think the argument is assuming the status quo is that people have fairly accurate beliefs about society.

I took the Dec test and I had no idea what this question was about after reading several times. I skipped it and spent solid several minutes on it, choosing A.

One month and half later I retook PT 74 and it was the same. I spent half an hour blind reviewing this question and chose B.

This question was so hard for me. Especially the last bit of the stimulus talked about the existence of a living organism, I thought bacteria is a living organism. D seems to strengthen the argument. I didn't push back to the part about plants and animals.

I remember a question where I lost a point because I thought wildlife includes wild plants. The test is so tricky.

So is this a rare case where the flaw is in the premise rather than the assumption? Thanks!

@ I'll try your method, redoing untimed PTs as review. Thanks!

@ Thanks for your info about tutors! But where do you think the tutors would be particularly helpful? If it's just for explanations, I could easily go to 7sage for LG and Manhattan forum for RC/LR.

@ I've BRed all available PTs once. But still I haven't done enough. I really hope they could disclose the Feb test so I know where I went wrong. Thanks for you suggestion!

@ Thanks! I'm very happy to learn that the post could motivate you. Press on!

@ Thanks! I'll check them out. :)

@ I like the idea of untimed PT. I think I didn't do enough serious review the second time around. I would just burn through the tests as quickly/much as I could because I thought I had blind reviewed them the first time around anyway. The tricky thing for me was that I was consciously practicing thinking fast and sometimes superficially. For example, I may do 40% analysis of A to get rid of it. Because I know I would be prone to rush in the real test and I need to cultivate my intuition. But the biggest differences between PTs and real tests are hard Qs. For PTs, I had internalized the nuances of hard Qs and they seemed easy. But in the real test, they're just unfortunately new and weird. Under the stress, my brain sometimes just couldn't think deeply enough and failed to function properly (even after I skipped them and came back). That's where self-doubt came from. I couldn't rely on my intuition and process that I built during PTs in the real test. That definitely killed me. I think that's why I need more serious review.

Or maybe I need to read books more extensively to really build up my abilities? What do you think?

@ Yes. I've taken all official LSATs. But I've never taken the India LSATs. What do you think about those tests?

@ Thanks for you reply! But I just don't have another fresh PT to work on. Do you think getting a tutor would be helpful? I live in a small town where professional LSAT tutors may not be available. If I have to do that on Skype, what can they offer me? I feel the material on 7sage/ Trainer/ Manhattan would be more than sufficient to unveil the secrets of the test. Your thoughts would be highly appreciated!

@ Thanks for your reply! It's already too late for this cycle. And I want to try again. It can't hurt. It's quite annoying that they don't disclose the Feb test and I just don't have any new material. I don't know how to set an effective plan for this time around.

D also doen'st help to justify the relevance of supervisors in this question.

I think the author's possible explanation doesn't support D. It could support the opposite.

Is it oaky because it a subset of productive?

Is it not a problem in 13 that it says HIGHLY productive?

Hi JY, I'm not sure I understand your explanation at 02:32-02:42 where you imply a third correlation from two correlations. I think it's contradictory with the motorcycle analogy that you said in PT 50, S 4, #19. Thanks!

on E, is it even possible to have an explanation for a conclusion that doesn't supper that conclusion?

The exception appears in PT 36, S 3, #14. But in that case the right answer choice has the negation of most. I think in that case the issue is not the word "most", since even if we replace "most" with "some" it still works.