Took over two minutes but I got it first try, I feel excellent^^

I chose B (among other reasons) because of the language. B says "not all" which is just consistent with what the stimulus says: "hiccups experienced by many victims." If the stimulus had said "all victims" it would be a different story, but "many" doesn't preclude "not all." They could both be interpreted to mean most or some, so B didn't do anything to the argument.

I was so focused on the switch from "died from" disease X to "can contract" disease X

I think I understood answer A a little differently than was explained in the video. Small vacuum tubes are a subset of vacuum tubes. The final sentence in the stimulus says vacuum tubes are not presently comparable in their current capacity, so regardless of their heat tolerance, they are not currently a good substitute for semiconductors. I don't think the LSAT writers are making any assumptions about general vacuum tube heat tolerance, because even if they meet the heat tolerance condition they still fail the maximum current capacity and therefore cannot be a good substitute. Since that failure applies to the superset of general vacuum tubes, it would then apply to the small tube subset.

Is this an incorrect understanding of the stimulus / answers?

I think it would be really helpful to hear a passage reading in real-time. I'm having difficulties knowing how much I should be reviewing the passage as I'm reading it, and I average around 4.5 minutes to read a passage (even the easier ones), which is just way too long. I've noticed myself trying to analyze the passages the way Kevin does in videos as I'm reading, but that obviously wouldn't work on a real test under timed conditions.

Does 7Sage have any videos where they run through a passage not as a lesson but just as an example so we can see what the thought process is really like? I've heard on the older podcasts that there are videos of JY taking tests. Are these still available and would these be a good resource for that? #help

I was between C and D and ultimately chose D, but I'm still not 100% clear on why C is wrong. I didn't perceive the "some" relationship between coffeehouses and well-designed places. Can anyone shed some more light on this?

Getting this question right under the target time will be going on my resume

I'll read them for you. Are you looking for constructive feedback?

Q17 #help

Is there a concrete way to identify that "iconoclastic view" is referencing those specific last lines of the preceding paragraph?

Because that line began with "finally," I read it as a continuation and final piece of the Haraway's overall view discussed in that paragraph. Based on that reading, I thought "iconoclastic view" was referencing Haraway's "most radical departure" - her challenge of the traditional disjunction between active knower and passive object.

I ended up choosing C because it referenced that disjunction, but I had reservations about the "troubling political and ecological repercussions" it mentioned. I couldn't find a basis for that part of the answer choice, but I didn't even consider A because I wasn't looking for an answer drawn from that final line about partial realities.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I initially chose B and then changed to D because I got really hung up on how the group researched was self selected as not experiencing back pain and D was the only answer that talked about the group. Any tips on how not to make this mistake again?

B is incorrect because it just fleshes out the causal chain of the argument. I used real world knowledge to make sense of it:

Certain diets are low in folic acids. When someone doesn't take in enough folic acid, the cannot produce as much serotonin. This then affects their mental health. B is saying that different countries have different diets that ultimately affect manifestation of symptoms, so it is merely consistent with the argument and does not point at a flaw.

C is the correct answer because it highlights another hypothesis that the argument failed to consider. There are plenty of cultural factors which may contribute to varied manifestation of symptoms.

In eastern European and some Asian countries like South Korea, there is a heavy drinking culture and these countries also have statistically high depression and suicide rates. This could form an alternative hypothesis to counter what is put forth in the argument.

It took me a two minutes just to decide what I thought the conclusion was. I had to really think through the support structure. Ultimately this is what helped me:

So jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices. → The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments.

This doesn't make sense. Jazz consisting largely of those kinds of voices tells us nothing about what the BEST jazz singers do. The best jazz singers could be in the group that DOESNT do that, we just don't know.

The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments. → So jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices.

I still really don't like this, but it does make more sense than the previous option. While we don't get an example of a jazz horn player (I tried to fill in my own, shoutout Louis Armstrong and Chet Baker), the argument DOES give us an example of one of the great jazz vocalists. Based on that we get an argument structure where the middle of the stimulus presents the minor premises supporting the first sentence, which in turn supports the final sentence.

I was still not 100% confident on this one, but I did get it right

Q26 #help

Does anyone have a more comprehensive answer for why A is incorrect?

I chose it because of the information in the first paragraph: "Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying."

I interpreted the bold sections as supporting AC A because the common-law rules are shown to conflict with modern principles (they are considered bizarre). The author then continues with an example of such a rule that has since been abandoned.

I suppose I made the assumption that abandonment of a rule constitutes replacement with a principle. In my mind they're the same, because even if another rule were not put in place, the abandonment of the rule effectively changes the law to align with more modern principles.

Is AC A incorrect because it's too general? If it had said "some" common-law rules rather than just common-law rules could that have been correct?

I didn't consider B correct because of the word "rigid." I didn't think we had enough information to compare the respective "rigidity" of modern and eighteenth-century evidence law. While the latter was rigid within its own right, I wouldn't consider the abandonment of certain principles and the adoption of new ones "less rigid." To me, it just seems that the system is rigid in different ways.

I'd really love some more clarity on both of these points!

#help In terms of diagramming an answer like A, would it be fair to do the following?:

( broader collapse -c→ failure ) → blame unfair

broader collapse and failure

_

PROBABLY blame unfair

I got confused trying to simplify it the way JY did, but want to know if this is accurate. I took the first premise as having an embedded causal relationship, whereas in the second premise I understood it as saying there was a collapse and, concurrently, ViqCo failed (not explicitly stating that the failure was DUE TO the collapse).

#help

I love when they teach me different definitions for words I thought I knew

WOO only two wrong!

Finally hitting a good rhythm! Got this one 35 seconds faster than target time^^

I felt good about this one, it seemed pretty straight forward.

The first sentence was a conditional conclusion so I kicked the sufficient condition into the premises and got the following:

social int. → indiv free

social int. → pursue good life

rule of law

_

indiv free

We needed a premise that linked the rule of law with the other premises as a sufficient condition for indiv free

B) There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.

rule of law → social int.

Then we chain it up and have our connection.

rule of law → social int. → indiv free

I realize a lot of people negate the negative condition to make everything positive but that just really confuses me and I don't know why. "Without" phrases sound inherently negative to me so I prefer to keep everything in the negative and then it makes perfect sense

I thought through it and then decided to go back during blind review to try to write out the lawgic. This is what I got but I'm honestly not confident about my translation:

benefits outweigh → ( acq info → rational )

benefits outweigh AND acq info → rational

_

acq info → rational

The conclusion satisfied the acq info → rational part, but we still needed a premise showing that the consumers believed the benefits wouldn't outweigh the costs. They have to satisfy both conditions. E checks that box

Getting this in 31 seconds feels like a fluke, but... gift horse, I'll take it

Okay my method was REALLY different from JY's, so I want some thoughts on this:

If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans.

The whole stimulus dealt with aliens existing outside our solar system, so I kicked that up into the domain. Then I used the "unless" as an exception instead of doing NegSuf.

Domain: aliens that exist outside our solar system

Exception: those aliens are at least as intelligent as humans

1) send spacecraft

2) aliens can communicate → at least as intelligent as humans

premise 2 triggered the exception, so I took the contrapositive

3) less intelligent than humans → can't communicate

_

determine

I immediately eliminated A, B, and E because they don't fit the domain.

I eliminated C because based on our information, the existence of sentient life outside our solar system is in no way dependent on whether we're capable of sending spacecraft to their planet. C just made no sense to me.

Then I checked D against the information I had.

If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.

I linked this with Premise 3 to see if it helped me reach the conclusion and got:

3) less intelligent than humans → can't communicate → only detectable by sending spacecraft

1) send spacecraft

_

determine

I realize this method was kind of roundabout and weird, but I'm wondering if anyone else did this and ALSO whether or not what I did is entirely wrong and I need to totally rethink this question.

It wasn't discussed in the video, but is B also incorrect because we can't determine that reducing one known cause would result in the "avoidance" of resident discouragement? The other cause would still exist and therefore the discouragement would not have been avoided.

Comparing B to D, D uses softer language about "reducing" both cause and effect, but doesn't make a hard claim like B does.

This is why I ruled out B. Am I on the right track with this?

I was having a REALLY hard time understanding why A was the right answer until I thought about it really simply. We're trying to support the conclusion:

Preventing fraud is conducive to progress.

Why should I believe that?

A) because fraud is harmful to progress.

I think I was approaching this question way too concretely. I was thinking really rigidly about it, like "preventing fraud → conducive to progress". It can't be A because A says "fraud → harmful to progress" and those aren't logically aligned...... That's literally not what the question was asking for and I had no reason to try to think about this with formal logic. What on earth was I doing?

Wrong answer journaling this helped me immensely.

RC has always been my worst section by far and it turns out I just needed a framework to tackle the passages. I haven't needed to look at the passage a single time to answer the questions. Bless the Low-Res summary

#help I thought because the stimulus uses "either ... or" that precludes the possibility of both occurring, but the opposite is stated in this video. Any insight would be appreciated!