7sage is a great service, but is a supplement. It pairs great with the Loophole by Ellen Cassidy. People have other books they swear by, but that's my go to. The point is, one of these books will give you the skills necessary to attack LR generally, and then 7sage can help clean up misunderstandings. This advice would have saved me hundreds of dollars and nine months of no progress, so please heed it.

That's why I got it wrong; if it had said "without the influence of technology" or something like that it would have been fine.

7sage doesn't have any explanations for that passage which is freaking ridiculous. I'm in a similar boat with C.4.26. If you're curious about 25, I think this post does a pretty could job explaining it.

I understand why it's wrong, but I never would have understood it as circular reasoning unless I diagramed it into Lawgic. On an argumentative question like this, with few clear logical indicators, my first instinct is not to jump to logical translations. The flaw that I prephrased was that the author is arbitrarily making a determination between different types of success.

Also, I do not understand how she translated the conclusion of answer choice B. Wouldn't being a well-schooled horse be a new variable?

Her translation of answer choice C makes no sense. Can some one else please explain that answer choice? #feedback

How does this explanation lead to the conclusion that the amount is not "much different"? What is much different in this context? Suppose that each year the amount of code decreases by 4%; that would equate to an indubitably significant decrease in the population of the cod. I'm not trying to be annoying here, but is this correct answer to this question more so to do with the fact that the other answers were wrong? For context, I answered B, and I see that it was almost a 40-60 split between those answers.

This has to be the dumbest question stem I've ever seen. If it was just a normal weaken stem, then B would 1000% be correct. But they had to use this weird stem; old questions were so annoying for doing this.

Same here man, and I don't feel any explanation is satisfactory either. All Arjun's response does is acknowledge that intellectual property can hurt people; it never says it is more dangerous than the joyride example. Bad question writing in my opinion, but I'm happy I narrowed it down to these two choices anyway.

that's why I chose D, because it actually supported the argument instead of the weird nonsense it told us to do

Because I didn't see any obvious indicators, I went back to the two other methods of trying to determine a conclusion. The way of thinking that helped me the most was the main point method; the author wanted me to know that something was kind of suspect about this theory. Also, "As plausible as this may seem" has the same grammatical and narrative function as "but, although, however" which indicated to me that the context had ended so the conclusion must be coming up. This was a tricky question, and I hope my explanation helps.