Maybe you could write down your thoughts before making these video explanations so you can talk more slowly and be able to articulate yourself more clearly, it's genuinely disappointing I end up relying on the comments section every time because you're talking at 2x speed and slurring sentences.

Since when does not refusing to watch something mean people will watch it? Even if people wouldn't refuse to watch a talk show due to its controversial and disturbing content it might mean they would much rather watch bland and innocuous content, and switch to a different channel. In that case the argument still works because obviously producing bland and innocuous content is still the best way to appeal to large amounts of people. Isn't negating the correct NA answer choice supposed to break the argument? Or am I missing something here...

Why doesn't A also provide a plausible theory? The average living conditions of the country may have went down and affected certain living conditions that residents of area L value more than other areas.

Why are you always in such a rush? It's genuinely hard to understand what you're saying sometimes since you constantly stutter and have bad enunciation

terribly worded answer choice

everyone is talking about how they don't know what a rebate is but i spend 2 minutes trying to figure out wtf C was even trying to say lol

For question #19, D doesn't say in what way 'China Men' is atypical of her works, so how would it weaken the argument? For all we know it could just be atypical in a way not relevant to what the argument is talking about...

What's to say the students that improved the most in C aren't just naturally more gifted than the others? That shows nothing about how writing letters automatically helps with composition.

What proves that D was an act of civil disobedience though? You're assuming she's trying to bring about a legal reform. For all we know she just felt bad for other publishers and wanted to show public support.

How does B not provide support if muscle tissues have tons of blood in them? Regardless of whether or not a spleen is a muscle (I'm not taking the MCAT here), the stimulus never says seals only store extra oxygen in the spleen, if anything it's just given as a more specific example for the previous sentence.

The stimulus basically says an additional benefit would allow the situation to be profitable, when it was initially thought not to be. Unprofitable and profitable are direct opposites of each other and clearly show how the situation becomes “worth it”.

How is being able to exercise regularly a direct opposite of pain? Just because it says he exercised regularly before his injury doesn’t tell us anything. How does being able to exercise again guarantee it would be “worth it” for him? Seems like a whole lot of assumptions to forcibly make it parallel imo

The stimulus specifies that CE has to be treated quickly, whereas maybe OMS doesn't require urgent treatment. So even if the treatment method is the same, can't OMS be more dangerous at high altitudes because of the time factor?

Having a hard time understanding why A is a better answer choice than E

Question 6. Argue? Who are they arguing with lol

I firmly believe A is a shit answer choice. "Use of the crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests in place of crops that have been sprayed with insecticides will cause less harm to wildlife populations."

1. It doesn't matter if switching crops helps causes less harm to wildlife populations if insecticides are still sprayed excessively. Just because they don't need to be sprayed doesn't mean they won't be sprayed. For this to really be a necessary assumption then it should have said it will result in less harm, not just "cause less harm".

2. Causing less harm doesn't necessarily mean the population will recover. For all we know the population will remain stagnant at best, or continue slowly dying off albeit at a slower rate.

How does "A would not have occurred if B didn't occur" translate to B being the sufficient condition?