I'm a little late, but terrific post. I wish I had read this the first day of my LSAT adventure. It's paramount. This may sound hyperbolic, but this post alone is worth the price I paid for the curriculum.

Thanks.

Anyone else unsatisfied with JY's explanation of why (A) is wrong in Q1? He essentially says "no" lol.

Granted, I chose D but then was torn between A and D during blind review. It seems the only difference between the two is really that A includes the author's final idea, whereas D does not.

I don't see why, if they are the same, and A includes the same content as D, plus more,that A isn't the better answer.

The only qualm with A I had, was that the author never said "need", but it still captures the same essence as D.

JY mentions it in the video, and it is clear starting line 4-7 that (B) is considered illegal.

I can see your point, and I too felt uneasy about the word "easily" in line 8. But it came down to the best of the bad choices because really, as you said, it never explicitly said anything about what men wrote about in their memoirs specifically.

That being said, that's why I don't understand why you would think (A) was safe? Are you referring to the last paragraph when Denis Bertholet's point was presented about the social roles of women? If so, it's implied he is a nineteenth-century historian; not someone who experienced the Revolution and would have been in a position to "memoir" it. That leaves us only with answer choices C vs D; and C only applies to the republicans, so (D) is the only acceptable choice.

Sure Ill try. I think on line 23 the author shows his hand in terms of which side of the debate he is on. He clearly suggests the doubts are resolved, thereby eliminating answer choice (B). It's a judgment based on his language.

My tie breaker between the two was Lines 30-31 starting "and acting in accord...". Seems to support (A) nicely.

And yes, he does somewhat question the method described in lines 31-33 as you point out, but through process of elimination we can see all the other answer choices are right out.

Not to nitpick (but I will anyways), I don't believe what you had in mind before reading the answers was necessary.

"An assumption needed would be that CE is possible to get at high altitudes."

Well what if one contracted CE just before going to a mountainous area, but now that he/she is there, all the sudden they mistaken it for mountain sickness. That is still especially dangerous.

Anyways, thanks for sharing your perspectives on a lot of questions. It, if nothing else, spurs to us to consider different options.

Take care

I made the same error, but I can clearly see why now, so I hope this may help:

The reason (A) is wrong, IMO, is because at the end of the stimulus it explains that the manager's claim is that his employees will be safer in his plant than any other. Which means that it doesn't matter what special training this group of employees have had.

With (E) I also mistakenly disregarded this answer choice because I didn't want to assume that injuries and medical problems were the same thing. However, I first missed the assumption between safe and injuries. In other words, there is more to being safe than just avoiding injury -- and this is the essential gap one must find in the argument.

This of course on top of what the narrator described in (A), which was correct, that you could still argue by having this requirement on the employees, it made the plant safer. Thus if it does not strengthen, it's at best neutral.