started studying with a boyfriend, ending my studying this month without one (3 keep your head in the game ladies(/p)

Agree with Chanduell that the downside of doing regular time, if you'll have extended on the actual test, is that you won't be learning and practicing the material effectively, since you'll be under a time constraint that won't even be necessary to practice for your official test. Like you, I was confident I'd get approved (previously granted on prior standardized test, recent history of accommodation, recent documentation), so I always practiced using the extended time. I just got approved for the accommodations, and it's nice that I have the pacing for the 50 min section down to a science

Okay, never mind, number two was addressed. Number one still stands

Two things that I'm not understanding in the explanation of the stimulus:

1. I don't see how the second sentence is a hypothesis/explanation. It seems like more of an extension of the first sentence, not something that explains it. While the first sentence talks about the inability to distinguish between quackery and medical information, the second sentence talks about why quackery is appealing. I was thinking that text being appealing and text reading like medical information were two different things.

2. To build the "assumption" bridge form the first sentence to the last, you would have to equate the subjects of the sentences, too. The first sentence is talking about people who browse the web for medical info, and the conclusion is talking about people who RELY on the web to DIAGNOSE. These are two different groups.

Can someone explain how sentence 3 squares with sentence 4? I understand that we aren't supposed to attack premises, so we should just take the conditional in sentence 4 as true, but it seems at odds with the preceding sentence (3). Sentence 3 says that heat is caused by CARBON DIOXIDE, and then sentence 4 generalizes and says that heat is cased by greenhouse gases generally. If it weren't for sentence 3 singling out carbon dioxide as the greenhouse gas that leads to heat, then I would have understood why we could consider methane as one of the greenhouse gases that causes heat and thus could explain the water. I thought that causal arguments in the LSATE (which I considered sentence three to be) operated on the assumption that there was one cause for a phenomenon.

Is there a lesson I can reference to review/teach about descriptive vs prescriptive and moving from one to another? I have trouble with processing these "ought" statements logically. #feedback

I had the same process and also chose A. I thought that non-stren walking could have benefits outside of it's function as exercise (ie- leaving the house, fresh air). But I guess we were supposed to assume the older studies were arguing for it as a form of cardio. Love your username btw

Did the end of the video cut off for anyone else? #feedback

Me too... it didn't help that we needed to jump through hoops to connect the ACs to profit, so at first glance it kind of looked like they could go either way...

thank you eidan shahbaz. actually helpful

can you explain this ?

I see your argument about the strength of E, and I also understand that D is a fake dichotomy (although I would argue that it's reasonable to assume that you would not have opposing beliefs in one belief system), but what you're saying about D being a premise, not a conclusion, is confusing to me. I didn't interpret the support structure as being premise= claim is believed by epist.--> this is epist. + claim is not believed by epist---> this is epist. and then conclusion= whatever is believed by epist ↔ epist. . I think what you're interpreting as the premises is just an explanation of how to carry out what you are interpreting as the conclusion. Anyways, even if D was a premise, can't you still weaken an argument by attacking a premise?

Sure, E is a good answer, but if you assume that a belief system needs to be internally coherent (which is a reasonable belief if you ask many people) , D is also a good answer. The problem is that LSAC doesn't think it's reasonable to assume that belief systems have to be internally consistent, which I think a lot of test takers would disagree with.

Absolutely not.

I'm with you. I chose B because I felt that it was irrelevant/had the most assumptions- I guess my reasoning here was a little ridiculous, but I was thinking that merely beginning a repair project doesn't tell us much- if anything, it causes more construction which leads to more hazards. I guess I'm just thinking too hard

excellent usernmae

In real life that is

We have the same name btw :0

Okay but I didn't identify a temporal error in the prompt because it doesn't say "brand recognition in youth" and adult smoking- which would indicate that the study is about long-term/delayed effects. It said recognition and smoking- which I presumed to mean current for both. This feels different than the dolphin questions where the study is explicitely about delayed/long term effects.