took me over 1 hour to comprehend this one and like I still don't really.

4/5 timed and 5/5 BR on easy mode tho.

I would of got this one right if I didn't skip over the word "rejecting"

This explanation for specifically any ac but C) was so horrible and it made me sick to my stomach. I usually love the explanations tho.

I chose B but realize it's wrong because Waller doesn't address skeptics. From how i read it Waller states that the phenomenon can be accepted and exist so long as the general public accepts it and says they prob will because of the nature of it. But Chin fully shuts down this by saying skeptics will shut it down and thus influence the general public and thus as a whole it could not be believable (which is an inference). So, D is correct.

I got it correct but 12 seconds off ugh

4/5 on Medium

3/5 on easy :((((((((((((((((((( crying in the club tn

I just wanted to come here and say that I thought self defence meant to defend yourself. So in the case of a ball being thrown at you, if you went into self defence, I thought you would deflect the ball or cover yourself to defend yourself. This is why I got it wrong. Maybe I should of became a neurosurgeon so I knew more about the brain before taking the LSAT.

4/5 on medium I'm not mad at it.

the key here is knowing the difference between these words:

Counteract = push back against, weaken, reduce the impact.

Negate = completely cancel, nullify, or deny.

I love when I finally get one right n it's not considered a difficult question :)))))))))

Is what A is trying to say is that basically the people that didn't like the mayor had the same stance before and after the accusation of the mayor. Which leaves us to assume that the people who like him also kept their same opinions. So in other words, the violation didn't affect how people felt about how good or poor he is as a mayor. So A explains that the fact is not actually surprising but it makes sense because the opinions negative to him never changed. Yes?

I got this right lol but I feel like detect and record are 2 very different things.

He needs to stop saying "Uhhhh Okayyy....?" it feels like i'm watching Dora

Hello this is what I got from this:

A) repeats things mentioned int he stim and doesn't actually explain the issue with the data.

C) Doesn't speak to the data. Also, if the one that kills weeds is more concentrated then what is the outcome of this and why isn't the data clear cut and just simply put weed killers as effective?

D) Somewhat weakens it.

E) Only targets a subset. It ignores the other molecule. So it doesn't explain as a whole why the data for both are misleading.

B) Correct. Says that nearly all the data is collected from 1 style of testing where both molecules are equally concentrated in soil and the outcome is that they equally break down. this data is misleading. Instead the researchers should try concentrating more of one molecule and vice versa to see which is more likely to be favoured in the soil. (also in my opinion testing thing in an equal manner does nothing while especially getting equal results. In instances like this the thing tested can't be determined good or bad. A clear deficit is needed.

#gotitin53seconds

living for the getting it on the one level difficulty