I view AC D (the correct answer) as weakening a part of the argument, not the whole argument. AC D is perfectly consistent with a hypothesis that genetics influences (or is even the biggest influence on) behavior. However, AC D shows that the environment can still influence behavior, which is in direct contradiction with the part of the argument that says "our inclinations...are not subject to environmental influences."

The one I went to for the June LSAT was free... did they start charging?

Here are the resources/tools I used:

-PowerScore LG Bibles to get the LG basics

-7Sage (especially the LG explanation videos)

-The Loophole (translation is the key skill that book teaches and is applicable for LR and RC)

-Got a tutor to hone my LG approach

-Tutored (for free) students to deepen my own understanding of the material (Side note: my student scored a 98 percentile score)

-used an Excel spreadsheet to track the questions I got wrong / took too much time

-PTs once a week leading up to test day

Got this question wrong. The main point to understand here (which JY explained eloquently) is that if something is nonexistent then a belief in that thing is false (by common sense).

My only question would be: what is the "flaw" in the reasoning here?

#help (Added by Admin)

Hi! I've been scoring 162-163 with RC and LR being my strongest sections. Would love to collaborate with a study partner (perhaps someone needing help in LR or RC and who is good at LG).

Has your reading speed changed by any chance?

I started studying in spring 2020 and took the February 2021 LSAT. I scored almost the same as my diagnostic.

Then I continued studying for another 3.5 months, and scored a 170+

Takeaway: LSAT progress is not linear. You might be on the same score for months and then hit a sudden breakthrough

@ Gotcha, thanks!

Answer Choice C SEEMS like it's weakening, but it's actually too narrow in scope to be doing anything.

Seems like the LSAT likes to test this concept in LR.

@ said:

This is common. I think reading for clear comprehension is a skill that deserves its own set of practices. I suggest the Basic Translation Drill that I learned from Ellen Cassidy's Loophole to LR book, which I loved. Basically, you take a blank LR section. You just read the stim, cover it up, and then write out what you just read. When you're done, uncover the stim and see if you got it right. This will give you an idea of how well you're comprehending. Do not attempt the answer choices as you go---this is just reading practice. Do this drill many times. I improved by doing so. I think this drill will help with RC and LG too. Good luck!

YES!! I just started The Loophole a few days ago and I'm excited to see where it takes me!!

I chose A because it was the best answer, but doesn't this AC require the assumption that underground burrowing is necessarily at the root level? Maybe it's below root level...?

#help (Added by Admin)

Are we to assume that the last part of the argument, starting with "But if they simply learn..." is NOT the educators' argument but rather the author's?

Also, something that threw me off was the "basic" concepts/techniques. D refers to Greek a few Greek tragedies (versus a large breadth of Greek tragedies), but this doesn't really fit the idea of "basic" concepts...

#help

@ it varies from PT to PT, but I think focusing on the overall point the author is making in the first read-through, along with noting the various perspectives/positions, helps a lot!

There is one key reason why answer choice A is wrong, which I feel is not fully addressed in the explanation. We are told in the stimulus that little documentation of Caligula's alleged cruelties survive from his time. So the fact that there is less documentation from the time of Caligula's reign than from most other rulers does not add any support to the hypothesis.

In other words, I think that if the stimulus had not mentioned that there was little documentation of Caligula's alleged cruelties surviving from the time of his reign, then AC A would add some support to the modern historians' hypothesis. But given that the stimulus does, in fact, mention this, AC A lends no support to that hypothesis.

Not only does JY's original statement assume fidelity, but it also could be interpreted as saying "any child BORN IN THE WORLD during the marriage". Now that would be a lot of money!

@ said:

Hey! I have definitely been experiencing the same issue. I think most of it comes from pressure to get through the questions so quickly. It feels so terrible when you look and see that you could have got the right answer if you had not missed ONE WORD. Basically what I can recommend is reading through the passage twice. I really make use of the highlighter and I've been trying to focus on words that indicate positive/negative (not, neither etc.). Another thing for me was if the answer choices didn't always make perfect sense it usually pointed out that I had missed something. This has helped me, but mostly I think it will just come from practicing active reading skills. I've also tried rephrasing each sentence in a way that makes sense to me personally, which helps to enhance understanding. I think being aware of it is the first step, don't worry you got this!!!

Thanks so much! I'll definitely try to be more of an active reader!

I mistakenly thought this was a NA question, and chose E (after being stuck between A and E). Went back and saw this is an SA - and the question instantly became simpler!

I misread the stimulus as saying that the computer had higher overall accuracy than the cardiologist in diagnosing heart attacks. But this is not what the stimulus is saying: the stimulus is saying that the computer had higher percentage of correct diagnoses for those cases that ended up being heart attacks; not overall accuracy. AC E is wrong because it would strengthen the conclusion in the premise: the cardiologist is highly skilled/experienced, so if he is unrepresentative than all the more reason to just use the computer program for heart attack diagnoses. AC C is correct because it brings to light that the cardiologist had higher accuracy in determining which cases were NOT heart attacks than the computer program. So this weakens the argument because it calls into question the computer program's OVERALL accuracy.