Hey guys,
I'd love to get some thoughts on different ways to go about practicing RC. I feel like I'm not getting tons of progress from just practicing over and over. Do you have any advice to offer me in regards to practicing for this section of the test? Timed vs. Untimed. Reading other things. Breaking things down. IDK, just trynna keep things fun and fresh!
#help
Thanks
Not really a discussion, I just think y'all should add a tag for except questions.
I have a sneaky feeling that analytics would show that to be one of my biggest priorities of study if that tag was available. I also think that it's just generally useful.
Thanks!
#help #advice
Yea i'm on the same page here. I think it really comes down to D being a stronger weakener... C opens up the possibility that it was a different material that promoted growth, but D states that one of the algae that should have grown didn't. D is a better weakener.
Damn this was the best explanation video I've yet to see. I hope this shows up in your curriculum somewhere, because this is spot on.
One question to think about: Does the stimulus make a conclusion about all bats in all caves, or just the bats in the Bracken Caves?
It's important to realize that the conclusion only applies to the mother bats in Bracken Cave, which eliminates the notion that the stimulus uses a representative sample to reach a general conclusion of the whole.
Congrats, that's a fantastic score! I think that the decision to retake should always depend on the answer to the following questions. Are you confident you can do better? Why?
Usually this will depend on where your PT's were at before the test and if you believe that you have enough time and energy to devote to continued study to improve.
I do think that your GPA and LSAT give you a solid shot at admission with money, but another 5 points or so would make that almost a guarantee and would definitely improve your odds. It's up to you to decide whether or not that uptick in points is attainable, but I do think that it'd be worth it.
I don't love the breakdown on this question; so, after getting it wrong, I'm going to attempt to give mine.
Premise:
1-Some people browsing web for medical info can't distinguish between valid information and quackery.
2-Quackery is more appealing because it's written more clearly.
Conclusion:
People depending on internet to diagnose themselves will do more harm than good.
Thoughts:
That's quite the leap. Lets talk about premises first, what inference can we make based on them? That people who can't differentiate are more likely to be drawn to the quackery.
The conclusion then takes a leap and states that relying on the internet to diagnose is harmful.
So, what's the assumption? We have to assume that the quackery, which many people will be drawn to, is the reason that people are more likely to do harm than good.
Answer B states this assumption loud and clear.
It's an additional premise and subconclusion. The problem is that it doesn't really logically support the argument at all, so it just confuses people.