Wow, thank you, 7Sage! This community is the best ❤️

I saved considerable space on my résumé by getting rid of bullet points and just using paragraphs. See examples: https://law.yale.edu/student-life/career-development/students/toolkit-student-job-seekers/resume-advice-samples

Same flaw as Q10 in this section. (B) is baiting you to make the unproven vs. untrue flaw. But failure to prove =/= proof of failure.

criticizing an argument's reasoning =/= claiming the argument's conc is false

The first part of (C) clearly strengthens the gliding hypo, but is the second part -- "little control when taking flight" -- meant to weaken the lifting-off-the-ground hypo? As in, can we presume that "taking flight" means "lifting off the ground from a running start"? #help

Tricky main point Q. "However" indicates an intermediate conclusion, while the main conclusion is tucked away in the first sentence. I also thought "most likely" hints at an opinion, as in arguing for X as the "most likely"/better hypothesis than Y, other people's hypothesis.

The key words here are "but" and "evidently."

But: does NOT always indicate a conclusion. It can also indicate contrast or exception to the norm/rule as part of the context.

Evidently: indicates a conclusion, as in "evidence for [conclusion]"

I like to think of this flaw as failing to distinguish between intentions/motivations behind an action and consequences of that action.

For Q13, (A) is tempting because it's accurate, but incomplete, whereas (D) is both accurate and complete.

Which question are you referring to?

Passage A reminded me of the Walter Pater quote, “All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music," a sentiment shared by Oscar Wilde.

Anywho, to keep my criteria of evaluation straight for A/B passages, I mark up the Q (kind of like you do for logic game Q's with new premises). E.g., if an RC Q asks which one of the following is addressed/included in/implicit in passage A, but not/rejected by passage B, I put a big check above to the left-hand side of the answer choice letters for passage A and an X to the top right-hand side of the answer choices for passage B. So now I know to look for the answer choice with a check next to it for passage A and an X for passage B.

I think part of what got me for Q15 is confusing a question that the passages "attempt to answer" for a question they primarily seek to answer. We're so primed to look for a main point Q as the first Q for each passage. I was quick to eliminate (D) after reading passage A since it didn't seem like a good match for the main point.

Q26 had me stumped. It's asking about what kind of region experiences the most earthquakes. Line 12-14 is about where most earthquakes take place, which is not the same thing. This Q is bating you to make an assumption about how to distribute the number of earthquakes into hot/quiet zones.

Let's put numbers into JY's picture. Say there are 100 earthquakes total. 60 of them take place in hot zones -- say, evenly distributed among 3 (out of 8) hot zones in the world. Now it's true that most earthquakes (60/100) take place in hot zones, with 20 earthquakes per hot zone.

Now we have the remaining 40/100 earthquakes in quiet zones. In fact, let's put all 40 earthquakes in 1 quiet zone -- a super active one. So what kind of region experiences the most earthquakes? Quiet zones, easily.

Analogous situation: There are 1,000 house cats in the country. Most of them (750) live with families. The rest (250) live in single-person households. What kind of households live with the most cats?

If the 750 cats are distributed one per family, then family households on average live with just 1 cat. On the other hand, you can have 5 crazy cat ladies/guys hoarding 50 cats each. So even if most cats live with families, single-person households still win for most cats.

Could you talk about Cookie Cutter Review if you have time for this session? What is your method of Cookie Cutter Review in your LR and RC? Thanks!

Same. I'd love to hear about your cookie cutter binder!

In reviewing LR, I found one of the few questions that does test the difference between claim and argument: PT81.S3.Q21.

Whenever I encounter a double negative that gives me trouble, I rephrase it in my own words. PT46.S2.Q10 is a good example of this. You can rephrase "X is not indispensable" to "X is not essential."

super subtle NA question. the correct answer choice almost seems too obvious to be correct.

Parallel arg:

P: in a study, volunteers were assigned to eat fruits for breakfast and others to eat bacon for breakfast. after 3 months, volunteers in the fruit group performed better on a math problem than those in the bacon group.

C: eating fruits helps with solving math problems.

Flaw: assumes that the 2 groups are comparable. if volunteers in the fruit group ate bacon for lunch everyday or those in the bacon group ate fruits everyday, too, then the study is a sham. the NA simply affirms that during the study, volunteers in the fruit group actually ate more fruits overall than did those in the bacon group.

P/phenom: lower-back injuries are more common among office workers who sit all day than lifters who do physical work known to cause lower-back stress.

C/hypo: sitting in office furniture causes lower-back injury.

Flaw: with no control group, we can't determine one way or the other whether sitting is bad for the lower back. the phenomenon gives rise to a few possible explanations. in terms of incidence of lower-back injuries:

(1) if office workers fare better than control, then sitting is actually good for the lower back, and lifting even better.

(2) if office workers fare about as well as control, then sitting is neutral for the lower back, and it's lifting that's good.

(3) if office workers fare worse than control, then sitting is bad for the lower back, and lifting not as bad.

The argument concludes hypo (3), but fails to rule out (1) and (2). The correct answer choice weakens by introducing hypo (1).

Parallel arg:

P/phenom: employment rates are lower in law school A than law school B.

C/hypo: law school A does not look out for its students' career prospects.

Flaw: with no control group, we can't conclude one way or the other if going to law school A is bad for students' employment outcomes. there are a few possibilities:

(1) if A and B are both top schools, then prospects at A may actually be really good.

(2) if they're both middle-of-the-road schools, then prospects at A will be around average.

(3) if they're both unranked schools, then sure, prospects at A will likely be bad.

Takeaway: "more likely" implies a comparison of #s

Parallel arg:

P: About half of the residents of town A are employed by company C.

P: About a third of the residents of town B are employed by company C.

C: Employees of company C are more likely to live in town A than town B. / A greater # of employees of company C live in town A than in town B.

Flaw: assumes that the size (# of residents) of pie A is about the same as that of pie B, or that pie B is not a lot bigger than pie A / pie A is not a lot smaller than pie B.

Similar flaw in PT21.S2.Q16

Really great explanation -- thank you. Tough argument, but they took mercy on us in the answer choices. I was completely baffled by how the conc follows from the premises -- how do chimps help us determine nature vs. nurture? And even more so with the correct answer choice -- the conc is about the ability to recognize certain traits being genetic, but (C) is about the traits themselves being genetic??

(C) requires us to assume that if a trait is genetic, then the ability to recognize that trait is likely to be genetic, too. I guess it makes sense the more I think about it. For example, why would a bird species evolve a mating call if they didn't also evolve to recognize it?

Parallel arg:

P: Tropical birds can recognize other tropical birds' mating call just by watching a video of it.

P: Tropical birds can also recognize arctic birds' mating call from a video.

C: This ability to recognize mating calls is probably determined by nature, not nurture.

(C) Mating calls in tropical birds and arctic birds are both genetic. This opens up the possibility that the ability to recognize mating calls is also genetic.

Is (D) describing a flawed analogy? #help

here's a spreadsheet that's often floated around on reddit: https://www.dropbox.com/s/33ei4bdli29e4sh/What%20to%20Expect%20When%20You%27re%20Expecting%20%28LSAC%2017-18%20%26%2018-19%20Cycles%29-2.xlsx?dl=0

In the last sentence, the commentator forms a judgement about Roehmer's motives for writing: "her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers." This is an ad hominim attack, much like the one the commentator accuses Roehmer of doing in her columns. By criticizing Roehmer for doing this, the commentator implies that it's not ok to impugn motives -- but turns around and does it anyway -- to Roehmer. This is the flaw that (E) points out.

For those taking next week and already feeling test-day jitters: How to Harness Your Anxiety https://nyti.ms/2Ad9zF9

Yes, I think that would weaken basically the same way that the correct answer choice weakens--by introducing the alternative explanation that the subjects stuck to their beliefs because of independent confirmation of those beliefs.

I think "approach" in (D) refers to the biologists' attempt "to find their own versions of the law of gravity" (lines 24-25). So basically they're like, let's copy physicists and search for universal laws. As for why "the notion of a universal 'struggle for existence'" is an example of this approach, I think the word "or" in line 22 is key. By saying "in formulating the notion [X] ... or in asserting [Y]," the author is giving examples of the biologists' search for universal laws.

Takeaway: read the whole sentence in identify the role Q's. Don't pick an answer just because it's factually accurate. Make sure it actually explains the purpose or role of the quote asked about.