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

hi fish

Hey, same here.

One of my actionable solutions for this one is "reading the first sentence correctly."

By slowly, and correctly reading the very first sentence of the entire passage, you start off with the confidence that you can understand this, and it also helps you get an intuitive feel for how the passages will pan out. It might be more of a psychological trick than of practical use, but it works for me.

In addition, another one of my tips is to read the first sentence of the paragraph correctly for the same reason. This also helps in low-res summaries.

As Kevin said earlier into our RC lessons, I am increasingly, and empirically experiencing the importance of 'taking the time to read & understand the passage.'

*Thanks Kevin (thumbs up)

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?

You da mannnnnnnnnnn

Where are my high-fiving puppies!!

I agree with you that (A) doesn't sound super attractive, and very purposefully so, I believe. After all, we're trying to find what is best, not perfect.

I don't know if it will help, but this is how I simplified both choices:

(A): Contribute to public good --> Morally right

(E): Harm others --> Morally wrong

Reasoning:

1) Paper mill & industrial waste examples weren't mentioned to show how it "harms others", but rather as the unlikely, "absurd" occurance of them benefitting the public ( they didn't imply stongly enough that they "harms others" which is what I was looking for, in order for (E) to qualify as the correct answer choice).

2) While (A) (looking at the orange circles Kevin drew in the video, at the last part of the final paragraph) is more strongly supported because the author mentions that the economic consequences (from acting morally) do not excuse the individuals (meaning that they should act morally--laying out what is morally right) to "detract from the public good", which can be said as the opposite of "contribution to public good".

Now the reasoning sounds more confusing written down compared to when it went through my head,, but hopefully it makes some sense!

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"

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

1. Critics

News: the economy is so bad!

ppl: oh no! the economy is so bad! I shouldn't spend a lot of money...

-->negative news report is the cause of spending behavior change

2. Economist:

no no no, it's:

ppl: I'm not financially doing too well--I spent way too much money on LSAT prep courses and test fees.. I should probably spend less on boba..

-->ppl's own economic condition is the cause, NOT the negative news report.

so the economist is saying that #1 (context) is wrong.

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

medium x 2

hardest x 1 or 2

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 was like this too at first, like wth this makes sense

but what made me careeefully cross this out was the fact that it didn't include the conditional IF phrasing in the question, which is "if it makes life less difficult."

The reason why I thought this is because to change the wording, it must be that "IF (something), THEN (something)" and it didn't follow that.

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

Well. "Any" is a strong phrase.

An answer choice cannot be simply wrong because it says "only."

I mean, it's not the name of Voldemort like you say it and immediately you are wrong/judged.

To use the contrapositive of the logic given by JY above:

1) just because an answer choice is "narrowly tailored" and "fail to be overly inclusive", doesn't mean that the answer choice is defective.

So no.

2) This question is also in my study notes:

Don't be afraid of words: just because it says unusual words in a phrase like ("-- is abnormally low", or "people correctly believe that--")" doesn't mean they are wrong.

I fell for this trick subconciously many times and am still practicing.

Of course as test takers, our psychology is inclined to look for clear-cut absolutes to help not fry our brains, but I guess it is what it is.

We just have to read accurately and get used to some brain-cooking.

I'm just very tempted to go find ppl on linkedin who says to be LSAT test makers and just see what they look like

I think this aligns with my thinking, too, but in different wording:

"don't be biased" and asking "what is the issue at hand"

I thinkk the question asks for support on:

(resistance to HM)-affects/have a relationship with->(resistance to AB)

(B) supports the idea that resis. of HM can have impact on resis. to AB, which is in line with what the question asks, while

(D) just says that they can exist/be found together, not how they contribute to "exposure to HM promotes resis. to AB"