Care to articulate how?

If you can’t learn information from reading, law school might not be for you.

If you can’t learn information from reading, then law school might not be for you.

If you can't learn information from reading, then law school might not be for you.

The more in-depth explanation you want is that none of the other answer choices have any support from the text. If you thought one of them was supported by the text, you likely either misunderstood what you were reading in the passage or in the answer choice.

The reason it's a 5 star isn't because there are particularly great trap answer choices that seem to be supported by the text, it's because it is hard to spot why the correct answer choice is correct, which is the info he provided in the video.

While I normally find these videos to be an amazing tool, the analysis JY gives for question 5 on both of these videos is unhelpful.

I spent a solid 30 seconds while the clock was running containing my laughter at the thought of lizards rafting across the Pacific

A is describing an argument's context. C is describing an arguments premise.

The only statement we're given regarding the fuel rods, besides that possibility that they could have been responsible in theory (which gives us 0 information to infer with), is that they dont contain tellurium. Based on that, there's no indication that they have any isotopes, let alone the ones described in the first sentence. The unjustified assumption that likely getting you is the idea that there must have been a reason that they listed it as a possibility, but that's not common sense by any means. Anything is possible.

40 seconds in got me cackling

The stimulus says 'as the consumer uses the computer ...... information about their browsing patters is sent to the advertisers' which suggests it immediately happens once they create any form of browsing history on the computer. With that in mind, turning off the computer wouldn't be a choice that could disrupt this process.

Nah comets aren't planets

Because it's possible the solution would be worse than the original problem. Think about it in terms of economic systems. I could certainly critique capitalism, maybe for some therapeutic reason like acknowledging I'm not fully the cause of my suffering, but that doesn't imply I would want to change the economic system to communism/socialism.

I'd suggest you fact check me on this, but a false dichotomy is when you assert only two ways of proceeding are possible when in fact there are more than two. A net effect question, as described in this video, seems to assume all else is equal between two groups when there's insufficient evidence for believing so.

It's explained in his foundational videos on how to symbolize shit. The word 'but' is logically equivalent to the word 'and'.