For Q27, I was between C and D because it didn't seem like either of them were supported. I see why C is correct, but it didn't really seem to imply that more people would do it, just that it was an easy process. #help

#help Q22

Wouldn't the impurities in the stained glass be the thickness at the bottom? It was explained that, despite it not being due to the glass actually "flowing." the technique used to create glass windows did lead them to appear thicker at the bottom. So how is AC E incorrect for this question?

They really got me with 19 smh :(

Picked D because I read "facilities" as "fatalities" :/

#help I chose E since the other ones all seemed completely wrong, and although I see why it was wrong now, I don't quite get why B was right. The passage only ever talks about heart health, not overall health. I guess I was supposed to assume that "safe" referred to it being safe overall and not only heart health, but usually isn't it expected that we don't choose answers that are so broad? I immediately crossed it out assuming that it was out of scope with reference to the stimulus.

Completely skipped over the word "violate" :'(

Saw the word "principle" and immediately chose B after seeing that it conformed lol.

Interested!

B really tripped me up because of the "known to have done so" part. It works because it's more strongly supported than the others, but I immediately eliminated it when I first saw it.

Interested!

Interested!

This section was going perfectly until I had try try and figure out whatever this question was trying to say :'(

I managed to narrow it down to E, but it didn't really seem all that convincing since we had to make the assumption that Indian ethnicity = eat Indian curry rather than any other type, despite that never actually being mentioned in the premises. We don't know that Indian people only ate Indian curry, especially considering that they're all in Singapore, so it's not like Indian people would have an easier time accessing Indian curry than any other type of curry.

Question 14 :/

Same. Was PTing in the 170s and today I found out that I got drastically lower than that. I wish LSAC would at least let us know what we missed so we'd know what to work on...

But if you're taking it again, there's still plenty of time to get a great score. I'm planning to retake in November, and hopefully this disappointment will provide the motivation to do well next time.

I think another reason that A is wrong is because of the "only significant" part of the answer. If there are multiple significant factors, it doesn't matter how many there are, because if it is significant, you'd expect cutting back on it to at least somewhat help with the problem. So let's say that A.C. makes up for 50% of this energy drain and X makes up the other 50%. So clearly air conditioning isn't the only significant factor, but 50% is still a lot, so this can't help us find out why cutting back on A.C. usage won't help.

#help I was struggling between A and D here, and I ultimately went with D because it still made sense to me-- all we know is that it might create noise problems, but we don't know nay other factors. When I read it, there was still a possibility that the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks, so I interpreted the argument's mistake as not taking into account other factors, meaning that it did not consider that the residents would actually want the airport to be built. A makes more sense now that I've drawn it out, but it's hard to eliminate D for that reason.

This one was annoying because I immediately caught the flaw but then spent five minutes debating between A and B because I could not figure out how A was similar to the argument lmao.

It was hard to choose between D and E because it did seem like there was a contradiction; the commentator says that she has always taken a partisan stance but then claims that her column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers which seems to imply that it is not partisan and that she caters towards her readers' views. I guess it can also be assumed that the readers prefer partisan views, so was that how we were supposed to read it? #help

I only managed to get this one right through POE, but here was my thought process for the other answer choices:

Immediately crossed out A at first but had to go back after eliminating everything else.

B) "cannot" is too strong-- the argument only says that a fatal catastrophe is unlikely, not that it can't happen.

C) "must be the case" is too strong for that same reason. we only know what's likely, not what's certain.

D) "infers that something will work" is once again more certain than the speaker actually is. we have no idea if it will work or not, just that it is likely to work.

E) this doesn't happen. we're provided with the competing argument: "...since they would be unlikely to survive" is the evidence. it is never implied that that evidence is weak, we're just being told that there's evidence supporting something else.

Going back to A, I still couldn't quite see how that flaw existed in the argument, but what I did know was that the other answers were definitely wrong and that there was a part-to-whole relationship there, even though I couldn't quite figure out the problem with it.

Interested!

#help Still a bit unsure about Q17; I get why C is correct, but A still doesn't seem wrong. The passage said that they were hoping for private developers to invest and then explained that the rejected the bids, so it seems like they author disapproved because of the reliance on investments.