This is the more simple way that I saw it: The flaw is that we cannot use this definition because there are instances where it does not apply. The only similar one is AC A. There is a reaction (like a belief) that is happening without the phenomenon of art (like the phenomnon of perception) happening, and this creates an issue with the definition of art and perception. I just found the only AC that had some reaction, belief, etc. happening.

I also really like @ferdafresh's explanation:

I didn’t even read the first sentence of any of these AC’s .

If it didn’t include its very first word in the last sentence, eliminate (B, D, & E).

If it didn’t take the negated form of its first word, eliminate (C).

Voila and moved TF on from this scrambled word salad

Wrong on timed run and didn't check on BR.

The question mentions the directors of the Brazil project so that's an indication to find them mentioned in the passage: "The project directors rejected the relatively high bids of local Brazilian companies...and missed an opportunity to stimulate local production."

Prediction: The attitude is disapproval.

AC A: The attitude is correct. However, the author does not mention a heavy dependence on private investment. It's true that the backers hoped the profect would attract private investment. However, we only know that the directors rejected the relatively high bids of local Brazilian companies. Let's find that in an AC.

AC B: The author does not express surprise.

AC C: The author is definitely critical. He follows, "A short-term savings in start-up costs precldued the long-term benefits" of local production. Therefore, the directors overemphasizes the importance of reducing short-term costs.

AC D: There is no outrage.

AC E: The author does not question their desire to do so.

Looking at the analytics from my PT, I chose AC A for a little bit. I completely understand how the AC as it stands does not resolve the discrepancy. However, if it mentioned a similar study in the same sector (manufacturing), would it resolve the discrepancy? Compared to B, there's no comparison that it doesn't do it as well. But I'm curious if it resolves it a little. That would require the assumption that this discrepancy is a fluke which is not resolving...Maybe I answered my own question but would still love other people's thoughts!

#help (Added by Admin)

@ What is your schedule for doing these and out of curiosity what are you working on!

I missed this one on BR (I didn't flag for some reason) so BRing here!

The author assumes that a society's people being left without moral guidance will result in people who lack moral guidance. The author assumes that a society should not do something that will result in chaos.

AC A: It does not do this. It provides this situation as a sufficient condition for chaos, not a necessary condition.

AC B: It fails to consider this, but it would not affect the reasoning in the argument.

AC C: There is no claim about the violation of some particular rules. In both instances, the stimulus says the violation of any of a society's explicit rules.

AC D: I deduce that this is the correct answer, but it took me a while to understand why. The argument is that a society should NEVER allow any of its explicit rules to be broken. However, the chaos ensues from violations routinely going unpunished. So, wouldn't a reasonable argument say that society should not allow any of its explicit rules to routinely go unpunished (without saying that it can NEVER go unpunished). I see this vulnerability, but I'm not sure how that is a confusion with "sometimes not punishing violations of the rule." Does that mean the creator of this argument didn't understand what routinely meant?

AC E: I chose this AC, but I see that it does not take this for granted as it does not discuss the level of seriousness connected to certain rules.

I love the thought, but there are also questions where I've saved time because A or B was the right answer and I could confidently move on to the next question. I think it's a toss up and there's no way to know. If you find that going from E to A periodically may improve your focus or active reading, then by all means! But not sure if there is an overall plus to the approach.

Can anyone point me to JY talking about timing or skipping strategies?

I'm still working to improve my RC, so I'm right there with you. If you have time to go back on RC, then I'd say spend a little bit more time upfront reading the passage or the answer choices. I would much rather have a better handle on each passage in the moment than have to come back to it later on when my memory of the passage may have diminished. Hope that helps!

S --> FE some MS

Conclusion: MS some S

(S some MS)

Includes: at least one (up to as many as all)

So we had A B C and the flawed conclusion was A C.

AC B is CORRECT!

S --> B some C

C some S

This is the parallel flawed reasoning.

I completely agree with @. Also, if you are blind reviewing in the 150s that means you still have some basics to grapple with (we all do!). So, I suggests taking individual sections. Blind reviewing that section and really figuring out where you went wrong. Also, the gap between timed and BR in my opinion should be timing. With more time, you should be able to BR in the 170s. However, the gap you present here is some understanding so return to core curriculum if necessary!

I struggled with #5 as I was not certain that ethical judgements equated to value systems. However, it became clear after reflecting more. This AC mentions perceptions of risk, which paragraph 2 talks about ("a clear understanding about how the public perceives risk is needed." The author states, "Lay people's definitions of 'risk' are more likely to reflect subjective ethical concerns than are experts' definitions." In this way, the author emphasizes the impact of lay people's value systems on their perceptions of risk.

I got #24 wrong on both timed run and blind review so blind reviewing AGAIN.

So there were no limitations on the legal power of English and French monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries. What was a consequence of that? Well we know that creditors did not respond well. We know that Parliament decided to control the Crown's purse strings.

AC A: We know that monarches needed vast amounts of capital to expand their empires. This is part of the reason that they abused their lack of limitations on their legal power. As a result, creditors took their behavior into account and demanded higher interest rates. Did this mean that it was difficult to finance the expansion of their empires? Couldn't they just take out all the money and have higher interest rates?

AC B: I can't find a mention of new laws. It says there was no law or commitment monarchs could make that they could not unmake or disregard.

AC C: It says that the creditors demanded higher interest rates from monarchs than the monarchs' wealthy subjects. Okay but does that mean its easier for them or just harder for the monarchs?

AC D: This is exactly what I said. I suppose the only mention of borrowing comes in the next paragraph. There is a mention of debts and property rights and expropriating wealth and repudiating debts and reneging upon committments. I just thought they borrowed more money than they would have if their power had been restricted. However, the next paragraph says that borrowing increased after thei power was restricted.

AC E: "Parliament represented commercial interests that would not tolerate governmental disregard for property rights." Does this mean they were forced to demonstrate a willingness to respect property rights? I did not choose this answer because how can the monarchs before forced to demonstrate a willingness?

I sitll do not know so I have to watch JY's video.

#help (Added by Admin)

Thank you so much @.pines@! It was indefinitely postponed purely due to hiring effects of COVID, but I understand how it can raise more questions

I also missed #25 on the blind review. I recognized the evidence that supports AC C, but the evidence alludes to scientists in general while this alludes to physicists. I suppose that broader to narrow is allowed here. I also didn't equate a desire with a tendency but I see that was too aggressive. However, these two "caveats" should not have been the reason why I chose AC C over AC E.

However, I do understand my choice for AC D. The passage states that we are accustomed to dealing with our mental constructs of objects rather than the primary sense perceptions on which false constructs are based. I inferred that the consideration of mental constructs when it comes to mirrors therefore inhibits an accurate understanding of how primary perceptions function we actually look into a mirror. However, I think that an "understanding of how primary perceptions function" being inhibited by mental constructs was too much of an assumption on my end.

Thank you for this! Good luck everyone 😎

For #22, I said AC D because I thought it was related to the author's point about how we are going against what we are accustomed to. The author says that we can generally assume a reliable equation between perceptions and their associated mental constructs. Therefore, I thought that AC D was talking directly about rejecting this typically reliable requation when it comes to mirrors. However, this is too far off in the paragraph. I should have asked, "Why he is talking about people being accustomed to thinking this way?" People that is exactly why the explanation appeals to people. In the future when a question says "the fact that..." or asks to determine the role of a particular premise, I will definitely look carefully at whether it is a premise serving a conclusion. Asking myself "Why did the author say this?"

I've taken the LSAT 5 times and scored my highest on the 5th time. I suggest retaking to reach the 170s if you want to attend the top 10 schools.

Thoughts: Maybe the surveys had something bad that made the customers less likely to buy an item in that store. Maybe the surveys cost way too much money to make that it actually took a huge hit to their profits.

AC A: We don’t know whether any businesses increased their profits. It only says that profits did not decline for them.

AC B: Isn’t this exactly what the first line of the stimulus says?

AC B: So if a business gave out a survey, then they did it in response to complaints by customers. This suggests that the group who did not use surveys had no complaints whereas the group who did use surveys had complaints. That would explain the decrease in profits. I was hesitant on this one because I thought that it would explain that business had lower profits oaverall, not necessary a decline in profits. Also, I wasn’t sure if the businesses who don’t do surveys don’t do the surveys because they had complains or because they don’t do survey in general. I know that’s a lot of thinking but it is what came to mind.

Is it a correlation between more surveys and more complaints?

AC C: We don’t know anything about the results of the surveys influencing the profits, just the surveys being administered.

AC E: This is tempting because if the businesses who gave the surveys didn’t analyze the results of the surveys, then their sales would not improve and their profits would not increase. However, the other businesses who did not use surveys did not decrease in profits while these business did decrease in profits. So it doesn’t answer why they decreased in profits.

I dislike this question so much. A user below mentioned their issue with AC B: How do we know that the people who were already going to buy the product were going to drive? Isn't that asking us to compare the environmental effect of a mailer and a car pollutant? I guess the argument is telling us that air pollutant is worse than the environmental effect of a mailer and we are taking it at its word because we are trying to strengthen it.

On another note, I chose AC E for a reason that JY didn't address. If the percentage of product purchases from direct-mail advertisements is increasing each year, isn't that taking away purchases from stores that would have required air pollutants from cars to get there.

#help

I actually did not stick to the CC schedule provided by 7Sage because (like you said) my time for completion did not match up. If you can through it in order and with full effort (like @ said) then I would 1000% recommend it. Take advantage of the comment sections and add your questions and answer others too! I know you you are eager to head into timed sections or even practice tests (that was my mistake the first time around studying), but I promise the upfront preparation will work WONDERS.

Also, if you are feeling super comfortable with a certain lesson or section, no shame in moving faster than you expected through the CC. But it's most important to be self-aware and ask yourself if you're moving on to move on or moving on because you are confident.

All of this is coming from lessons I've learned through this whole process so I hope it helps!

Thank you so so so much for taking the time to write these. This absolutely helped so much! @ @

Any interest in BRing an LR section on Sunday? @ @

Premise: Vague law —> Vague limit —> /Know

Conclusion: Vague law —> /Feel secure

Predicted SA: /Know —> /Feel secure

AC A is the contrapositive (therefore correct) of my prediction.

Came back to this question months and months later...feels good to get it right. But still! JY's video reminded me of important lessons. Parse out the context from the argument with intensity. If you predict the SA, make sure to frame the contrapositive of it in your mind as well so an answer choice in the form of a contrapositive doesn't throw you off.

I'd like to join as well! I've already taken the PT and BR'd a while ago but I'd love to join in and refresh my thinking by listening in.