"this uncertainty" is referential phrasing for "those still waiting to find out whether they would need surgery."

so if those who are still waiting to find out if they need surgery were less likely to experience pain and we know that this uncertainity is stressful, we can conclude that stress reduced the amount of pain a heart patient experiences (A).

Really good explanation. Thank you!

I IN FACT GOT THIS QUESTION WRONG AGAIN.... scrolling through the comments and seeing is has me embarrased

THAT DID NOT SHOW A REDUCTION IN LOSSES OMG READ GIRL READ!!!!

the way the question stem is worded gave me a wrong sense of belief that we needed an AC that is inconsistent with both. but upon reading the question stem closer, i can see that it says Each of the following assignments of computer programmers IS CONSISTENT (meaning 4 answer choices are consistent with both speakers principles except ONE so my job is to find the AC that is inconsistent with one of the speakers) both with the principle expressed by Vanessa and with the principle expressed by Jo EXCEPT:

50%: I -> R

35%: R -> C

Bruh whatever

That’s amazing!! What are your biggest tips?

In the second paragraph, the author says “the conceptual clarity provided by a traditional ethics course can be valuable,” so the author does not reject the traditional method entirely. However, the author argues that narrative literature can provide a deeper understanding of human nature and allow greater flexibility in applying moral principles. Thus, the author recognizes the traditional method’s value while criticizing its limitations.

wrap it up Bettelheim

be skeptical of answer choices in RC. if the answer choice starts off good but uses a word that is NOT in line with what the passage is saying, dont choose it.

force yourself to physically find the exact sentence in the passage that justifies the correct answer. if you cannot point to the line that proves it, DO NOT CHOOSE IT!!!!!!

The next what part threw me off for some reason.

qualified = write well

Agree vs disagree are not relevant to the argument. Eliminate any answer choices that bring those up. Meaning of the poem is a new idea mentioned in the conclusion. Make sure an answer choice brings that up. This leaves us w E

LSAC wanted us to get this wrong so badly

for visual learners

thank you. so like for D it could be true because we are told about "any two readers from difference cultures or eras having radically different beliefs" but not specially told about two readers from the same era arrivng at different interpretations of the same poem? like it could be true but we dont have that information to infer that it isn't?

Note to self: should and must are not the same

Should not does mean must. If the stim says something should happen the answer choices can’t infer that as something must happen

i feel like C is too narrow to be a main idea #help

a) there is no such causal link in the stimulus

b) blend of natural and artificial?? this was not talked about in the stimulus so we dont know what happens when clothes are made from blends of natural and artificial fibers

c) the problem is that this AC talks about stretching when the stim talks about shrinking. also easily?? we know nothing about whats easy and whats difficult. that is not relevant

d) where does it say they cant be straightened??? unsupported.

e) okay 😀 lol honestly when i went through these answer choices i didnt know why this AC would be correct, but i was sure the other 4 were incorrect

• after review: heat returns artificial fibers to their original state without producing the curling-related shrinkage.

Sometimes it’s better to use POE than spend 10 minutes on a question and still get it wrong. Under time pressure, if you can confidently eliminate four answer choices for clear reasons, pick the remaining one and move on... even if you’re not completely sure why it’s right.

i read this question in a hurry and thought it was asking about the author's attitude towards the Hippocratic oath...

Note to self: read question stem carefully

hahah AC E made me laugh bc i would def use that as the title 😅

A) even if tests intended for diagnosing autism at such an early age existed before the new test was devised, we have no idea if those tests accomplished what this new test accomplished so this isnt necessary for the argument.

B) this is necessary because if a diagnostic test that sometimes falsely gives a positive diagnoses (like the test in the stimulus did where it wrongly dientified 2 children as autistic) can NOT still provide a reasonable basis for treatement decisions, then that destroys the argument presented in the stimulus and shows that perhaps autistic children CAN'T therefore now benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.

• Note: the negation doesn’t establish that earlier treatment is impossible. It breaks the reporter’s justification for saying this new test makes earlier benefits possible.