How are we supposed to know that property law is part of common law?

A and D both say it supports the ethicists’s view but you only marked that part as wrong for A???

I got this right, but I’m really struggling with the assumption that a preserving a unique way of life is a social issue. Especially because the “unique way of life” was just a job. That’s a unique economic way of life. But there’s no indication that it’s a unique social way of life. Why do we assume that the business of selling peaches is a social issue?

If you negate D then the consumer violates the principle they laid out. The argument falls from there. It would not follow the principles to refund a watch that was stomped on.

We don't know what the consumer did to his watch. He could have stomped on it as soon as he got home. That's why it is necessary for us to assume that he only used it as intended.

This is such a scummy setup by LSAC. Hiding the hyphen at the end of a line is so stupid.

Can someone explain question 9 more in depth? What actually makes E correct and D incorrect? Minor volcanoes are shown to have "no discernable effect" on temperature while major volcanoes DO have an effect.

It just seems like there is no real reason to prefer D over E. They both reach the same point relative to the context around it.

I chose D, but switched to E on blind review.

The first sentence is what really locks in C as right. I also picked B, but on reread it's so clearly C. There are 3 important things that lock this answer:

1. Most distant orbits are oval shaped,

2. Conclusion claims that the ovals are because of other planets

3. C provides that there are at least two planets orbiting distant stars.

This is really similar to a necessary assumption: there needs to be multiple planets orbiting a distant star for the conclusion to track, otherwise something else would be the cause of the orbits. As it's a strengthening C says "most cases," which locks it up as correct.

Explanation for #22 is extremely poor. The passage specifically does not mention what glass techniques were used in the 19th century. It mentions what happened BEFORE, something that happened later, and what happens today. Why do we assume later means 19th century? I can't handle these "the answer is correct because it is correct" explanations.

Same! I'm really struggling with what makes something an intermediate conclusion and how to identify that in a stimulus.

Setting the standard for art does NOT mean anticipating later artists. That is incredibly lazy by LSAC to conflate the two. There are miles of difference between being able to predict what art will look like and predicting what artists will look like. #6 needs a much clearer explanation because that is absolutely not supported by the passage.

What? Why is everything already crossed out when he gets to the questions? How am I supposed to follow this????? #help

The "very little" he knew could very well have been that the brakes were defective. Irresponsible for LSAC to leave that window open

Funny. I chose E and was deciding between A and E in Blind review. Color my surprise when, after committing to E, it showed that only 2% of people picked A. Phew. I eliminated B and D quite early, but was still having trouble eliminating A in B.R. even though I eventually was able to reason it out. Any tips on how to confidently exclude an answer choice like A that it seems most others can just write off and move on from?

I've gotten every Flaw question right, but I feel more unsure on these and use P.O.E. more than on other questions. Any tips on finding confidence in the right answer?

The economists argument was that IF the policies don't change, recession will happen. That's a conditional. So, if you take the contrapositive: If the recession didn't happen, then the policies did change.→ We know that the recession did not happen, so the policies must have changed. Hence, the state of affairs on which the economists premised their prediction did not happen. The policies changed and the prediction was about if the policies did not change.

Can someone explain how they determined that the last sentence is a conclusion and the first is only a major premise? J.Y. kinda just said they were what they were without explaining why and I can't create the link in my mind.

49 seconds for me lets goooo

So disappointing that J.Y. doesn't even bother to analyze B, C. or E. Hopefully I can find an explanation somewhere else

4 A answers in a row is a little much man.

3 A's in a row man I'm getting meta psyched out. Stuck to A though because I noticed the two separate events in E. Getting better slowly

Got spooked by the last question also being A, but I stuck to my guns and got this right. Still very shaky on the reasoning and the videos don't help much. Anyone willing to explain this?

UGH. It felt too easy for A to be right, and I thought it was way too close to a principle type answer so I switched to D. I knew D didn't rise to the level of reasonable expectation, but nowhere in A did it establish that she had a reasonable expectation either and that threw me off. Now I see that this question type is just asking in relation to the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. I keep confusing the question types. Any advice?

idk why he does that. It's so frustrating, but he means just for that question. Even when he says "blank will never be right" he means for that question type/specific question and stimulus.

Got this right at target time, but that blind review was painful. Really hard to distinguish between B and E. In my mind they both work for the prompt. Is it E because its a tighter fit? I thought that wasn't something that mattered for this type of question.