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

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.

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.

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

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

Absolutely not.

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.