The answer was so meta. didn't know LSAT makers would be this sophisticated

Where are my high-fiving puppies!!

felt at home with this passage coming from criminal justice background. rational choice theory, anyone?

(A) It overlooks that~

Well I overlooked exactly the same thing I guess.

I just thought this was more of a cheapshot. say something and believe another this "publicly"?

come on, Tagowa.

JY: "take a moment to reeeally think about this" (immediately) "the answer is NO"

- Fear blinds. (do not misread)

- He sounds like Logic

I don't even know what to write on my notecards for this one

The reason why I got this right depite my confusion with (B) was because I read back the text and it said "symptoms".

That the symptoms were what they looked at, and made them draw out their conclusion. Hence, they probably made a fatal error, if they did, with their premise about symptoms.

tbh I read back the answer choices +read the comment section got WAY more confused.. how is this a difficulty 3 question

When I chose C, I was going through the scenario of/that it was saying:

okay, guys, the goal is to save money

1) oh you can do that if you use TG.

2) if you use TG for Steel, it costs "only" $10 for us

3) but the if TG costs $15 to install?

4) what the heck. then no.

In order to satisfy "greatly reduce bills + save money", C NEEDS to be true..

sooo people who get this right are either 1) freaks with more leftover time or 2) freakier freaks

I think 1)I'm too dumb to understand JY's "lanugauge" or 2) sometimes the explanation is not sufficient for me.

a-the use of "expect" is why it's wrong. they know flattery when they see one, but that doesn't mean they expect it.

b-"tend to focus" is not good enough to cause "subsequent" promotion of kiss-as/sers, which leaves room that the flattery might still have some room in affecting it.

c- tricks you into thinking that it's the contrapositive form, when its wrong.

Flattery noticed=>"almost never" effective.

Contrapositive should be:

flattery not noticed=>"almost always" effective? but the choice says its ineffective

d-is just too stupid of an answer

My note for this video is:

"For Principle questions,

When (Text: illustrations), and (Q: find principles) => (A: generalized wording)"

Vice versa:

(Text: principles), and (Q: find illustration) => (A: specific wording)"

These are the types of questions that make me wonder, 'would this be the line of logic and the type of arguments I would be making as a point in court?'

well, your honor, the legal application of the law here isn't pointing to whether or not she got hurt, but that he knew and "believed" that it would cause harm to her. That is what makes him guilty, not that she was simply scratched from the paper clip.

I think the LSAT test makers' trap/strategy for this one was, to me at least, was the use of passive voice "we should not allow a change to occur.", which seemes passive, but under close scrutiny, implies an active stance.

After reading the question, we sense that it's nudging us to subconciously look for "we should (actively do something)/(preserve)" do something.

1) this lured me to (E) first because it was an active voice

2) point of panic because (B), (C), (D) are all passive and negative

My reasoning for the choices were:

A-overly inclusive, but can be right if it hadn't said "certain"

B-its the exact opposite of what we should do. BECAUSE we don't know the facts, we should max our efforts to preserve.

C-1) "any further than necessay" what's the standard

2)"flourishing"? we're interested in preservation only, at least from the text right now.

3)human population-okay, we are "living organisms" after all, I guess, but this may be too limiting.

D

-We should not allow a change to occur -->

we should do something (changes to the active voice that I was looking for)

-unless we are assured that that change will not jeopardize-->

if we know that it will jeopardize

(negate "unless" by changing it to-->"if " and negating one verb)

-anything that is important to us-->

preservation of certain species that we care about. so, YES

E-"immediate" made me cross it out. How do know if those necessary scientific discoveries will be available to us in the immediate, or far out in the future?

Hope this helps

How do we know that the kids respond better in self-defense mode?

their self-defense mode coordination could still be developing, as mentioned in the premise.

do they just magically have an AWAKENING that triggers their physical coordination skills when seeing a fast ball?

Taking it for granted that

(normal motorized coordination)<(self-defense mode) is a stretch.

I'm getting called out as "crazy" way too many times for the options that I pick, which actually is making me crazy.

for PT116 S4 Q19, I don't understand why (D) is not correct.

I understand that (B) is right b/c the "idea of self of relational to ... cosmos"(line 15-18),

but the cultures emphasizing the high specification of an individuals identity would be accurately reflected if they didn't allow the same name to be assigned to another?

Is it b/c there were--aside from a mere name--various additional ways by which that identity could be defined?