This question was intuitive for me, but the more I'm thinking about it, the less I like it.

I don't like how strongly worded B) is. From the stimulus, all we can really infer is that the steam is one possibility. Can't another be that the iodine and cesium came from the spent fuel rods, while the tellurium came from the steam/some other method that wasn't discussed (indirectly from the plant's core).

I know that it's a MSS, not a MBT, but even with that it seems too strongly worded b/c it only seems to be 1 possibility.

Am I wrong in thinking this? #help

Ugh, I misidentified the conclusion as the third sentence. Thought it made sense as the conclusion during timed b/c when I read this sentence, I was like "well why is it that the relationship to art has changed over time?" And then I thought the final sentence helped to answer that question, thus rendering it as support.

Can anyone help explain to me why my thought process wrong? #help

Can someone go into more detail as to why C) is wrong? I thought it matched part of the principle that had to deal with "waiting to make a decision until a test is completed"

#help

Doesn't D) contract the stimulus? D) says that fossils exist in Australia but aren't we told in the stimulus that "closely related species [of iguanas] exist in the Americas, but nowhere else" ????

I'm confused. Trying to see how it doesn't contradict. #help

Can someone go over why C) is wrong? I found it attractive b/c I thought the argument was assuming that both the left and the right were wrong, when it could be the case that one of them was correct in their characterization. So C) was attractive b/c it suppressed the possibility that there could also be additional critiques aside from the left and the right.

:/

#help

Can we also say that A) is wrong because it only eliminates the potential for additional predators, but still leaves the paradox of the wolves being potential predators up in the air? So even if there aren't other predators, as A) suggests, the fact that wolves are likely still moose predators is still "unresolved"? That's kind of how I eliminated A). #help

I really really don't like the correct answer choice for #1... C) felt incomplete because it's completing the missing "genetic" element, which is why I eliminated it. :/ Didn't like any of the answer choices for #1, but I panicked and just picked E) and moved on

Is C) just the right AC because it's the least wrong? #help

same!!!

I read the explanations below, but I'm still not crystal on why E) is wrong for #21. The author only says that "most adults understand and recognize the [advertising claims]" in line 41. Most is not all, and most implies that few don't understand the claims for what they are. So... :/

#help

Is it really feasible to do this passage in 5-6 minutes? Am I just super slow or something? I spent 7:23 on this with bubbling, but JY's video on this passage says to do this in 5-6 minutes :/

#help

I see what you’re getting at but I don’t think all investors are part owners. Investors in bonds aren’t owners, I believe.

I have one for red herring:

PT 67-4-21: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-4-question-21/

"It does not address the neighbor's claim that pesticides used by the farmer are spreading onto her land"

this question is trash

Hmmm. I see your point but I think it's debatable. Just because profit flows in the direction you described, doesn't mean the stakes for owners and investors aren't different. Investors may have less of an incentive to stay on/not abandon than owners do, which would make it difficult to draw an equivalence between the two groups.

Lol, I literally tried poking a hole by drawing a distinction with the comparison/analogy/point of similarity you drew. The LSAT is taking over my thoughts hahaha

Let me know what you think!

I eliminated A) for another reason, because of its mention of the word "owners" -- Alex only brings up investors, which aren't necessarily the same thing as owners. Is that also another correct way to eliminate A)? #help

seems weird that this is a SA and not a PSA since there is still a gap between the premise and sub-conclusion that isn't addressed by D)

why is this a SA? #help

wtf is A) even saying

Thanks for the reply - that makes sense. In the stimulus, we are hastening if we assume that the relatively less hastening thing (grass) is being replaced with the thing that slows down, but slows down slower (trees). Less effective = hastening

lol I didn't know what "policyholder" was referring to - at first I thought it referred to the actual company's view, so I wasted a bunch of time on this question for that reason, even though I eventually got to the right answer by seeing that B) is only only AC that even attempts to match the necessary condition

Ugh, concepts of relative vs. absolute with respect to the word "hasten" here really fucked me over here. I was between A) and D) and ended up picking A) just because I wasn't sure whether or not the whole --slowing down global warming, but doing so at a lower rate than you would with using grass-- that D) implies actually meant that you were hastening global warming.

I guess, if you think of it relatively speaking, in that situation you are hastening? Since we're positing that the grass would have been planted there otherwise? And so even if the trees are slowing down global warming, since they're slowing it down less, it's still hastening it? :/

Idk why I'm having so much trouble with this, feelsbadman because it seems like no one else did

#help

Actually JK, I'm still confused.

Can someone actually help me understand why A) is wrong? I feel like it's also getting at the idea that it's the number "recorded" that has increased, even though the actual # of tornadoes per year has remained unchanged. (which is what E is also getting at)

I'm thinking this because if the meteorologists understand what creates tornadoes better, can't they get better at detecting/recording them over time?

Is it wrong because we can't assume that the meteorologists are responsible for recording the # of tornadoes? Or is my initial thought correct, that it's wrong because of the word "before"?

#HELP

I chose A) because I didn't read carefully enough - the "before" in the AC makes this one wrong. It doesn't matter if they weren't well known before 1953; the stimulus is talking about 1953 onwards.

I pre-phrased a stronger version of E) but thought "many" was too weak, so I picked A) because I thought it was getting at the same thing. It was, but the "before" makes it wrong. Ugh

I thought of this more as a PSA question, but yeah it obviously also strengthens

#help

I truly don't understand how we're supposed to see that the last sentence of the stimulus: "We can conclude that no one fundamentally desires anything except pleasure" supposedly means that: pleasure is the reason we want things.

I really am trying to figure out how to arrive at that implication but I'm at a loss.

I got this q wrong b/c I couldn't work out the flaw. And b/c I'm still having so much trouble seeing it, I feel like the only way I could get this q right would be through POE.

If anyone has any insight as to how to arrive at that understanding I'd really appreciate it.

So there's no live commentary for section 2? I'm seeing a live commentary for all the questions from the other sections, but not for any of the section 2 questions. Just wanted to make sure that I'm not missing something #help