Why is it "Antiobiotics fail", but then "Mary Sims declares 'Bilboards are the basis of our business'". If antibiotics do not specify in what they fail to do, why does Mary get to tell us what she declares? why is it not just "Mary Sims declares"?

If a some dogs like bacon is MBT, then given that some is reversible, cant some bacon like dogs? This is a stupid sentence, but I am just wondering in terms of our logic rules.

5/5 on medium babyyy

I feel like we are ignoring the whole part of the stimulus. How can we not equate "Convince the general public of its existence by clearly demonstrating those powers" and "if it were a real phenomenon, could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all the skeptics". Is it because Walts opinion denoted the people needing convincing as the general public, and Chin denotes the people that need convincing the "skeptics" and thus the elites that influence the general public? Is it because the two opinions of who needs convincing are not talking about the same group of people?

I am not a fan of kicking and do not find it helpful. I see its point when we have an overbearing amount of conditionals, but these do not seem to be the case.

#feedback is there a way to make these types of breakdowns another type of practice question we can drill? I think its beneficial to be spending my time here now, but from the comments, it seems like a lot of people come back to this section right before or after taking the LSAT. I would love to have even more extra practice for these foundation break downs.

I crashed and burned on this question and chose C, mostly because I read too fast and missed the "Cannot" part in QC and the "Not" part in QA. But if we took away the "not" part in QA, would we have a more reasonably stronger answer choice? My answer is no, because its assuming that fMRI's can be securitized the same way as genetic profiles. Once he was going over the answers, I realized that QB was correct, because in my mind it fixes QA (when I was reading it without the "not"). We can't say "fMRI's need this kind of security measure" thats an assumption, and one we would base off of real life. At most, we know that fMRI's have a break in security that genetic profiles do not, and based off the passage, we do not have a have a fix for the fMRI at the moment. Please let me know if this is a good interpretation or a good way to realize what questions are wrong and right.

Question: should I be consistently taking PTs at this point? I thought the course program would prompt me when it was time to start incorporating them. I have taken them in the past, but not since starting the course.

I somehow always get High priority questions wrong. Will be going over this in drills a few more times to see if I can get the higher ones correct more consistently

I think its weird that no one is talking about Darwinism and survival of the fittest. I hunted for C in this case, because I already thought that something apart of the wild birds environment was naturally selecting these small birds. Some people are saying thats a large assumption, but when we did the theory part of RRE questions, it said to lean in when you understand the concept. I dont know anything about bird species, but middle school science did help me go into hunt mode for this question!

I dont get A. Wouldnt we want to be looking more into the 52% that hasnt changed? Not the 47% that already felt a certain way. Because if the 52% stayed the same before and after the ethics violation, we would want to explain why they stood strong in their thoughts. I dont think we need to explain how 45% of the 47% just had their beliefs reinforced. The phenomena is that the 52% didnt change.

Someone please tell me how I am wrong.

#feedback would it be possible to put the average time needed on the quick view questions? I almost always do the quick view to try my knowledge first, but this question especially is complicated, and I think it would be beneficial to at least know what we should be aiming for in each question, despite not necessarily timing it.

Writing B out to make sure I fully understand, because even with the comparative claim, I feel I wouldve still put it as wrong:

"Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region."

'Most fish' is wrong because, its trying to tell us a number. What if only a few more fish survive, but the area is still not a great place for fish to survive?

'More fish' is not trying to give us a number, but it would break the chain we have set up for conditional logic.

"Before phosphorus level doubled" = Before we had this conditional chain that lead to few fish surviving.

If we break the chain, or the chain had not yet existed, we can safely say more fish would have survived, because the phosphorus was not yet effecting their habitability.

having 'More' instead of 'Most' would have made that chain correct. Not more correct than A, because this is an MBT question, but if A wasn't there, B with the word 'More' would have been the correct answer.