@cateyjardine3 said:

Any instincts on what the curve will be?

gonna guess -8 for the saturday test, at least the one i saw.

i would like to be added!

The passage is about what contributed to Motown's success. That paragraph specifically talks about how Detroit has a good music program and its history of it. Nothing really suggests an author would believe the music support in Detroit would've declined without hackey. It was merely just describing a factor in Motown's success.

#help

also would like further elaboration because we learned that can go backward. It was also hard for me to pinpoint this flaw as well. I only got this right by matching quantifiers.

I could honestly not really see the deeper connection between the two passages, it was freaking hard to read. All I could see was that they both did not like the historical approach and blah, but yeah.

the argument isn't that being big because it helps them swim from prey. it's they don't grow armor because it slows how fast they will grow. then they say it's the size that gives them their defense against predators.

C presents an alternate cause for why they grow their armor. They grow it bc they need it in the winter, not to defend themselves from predators.

yeah RC sucks

that's exactly how I saw it too and I think it's crap. this entire section was not nice to me.

but i think it was assuming that incidences of skin care were higher in 1970s? bc that led them to regulate CFCs so then it probably reduced the incidences after? but the wording could've been way better especially when the first question was pretty bs too.

#help

yeah, I don't know why I made so many assumptions on an SA. I should've stuck to the stimulus like I normally do for it.

SA's are usually my best, and even though I know why I got this wrong, I still think this question is poorly written.

I think it's poorly written mainly because if you compare this question to other SA's, it is not as concrete and definitive when it comes to setting its premises/facts.

This was my thinking for this question:

The "ought" part did not sound like a statement of fact that the city council members will ONLY abstain or vote against. It sounded more like the author's opinion on what they should do. And I thought unstated "citizens should not be able to decide on the proposal" was a strongly implied connection because the conclusion is at least one should vote against it(aka /all abstain).

I was between B and D. I didn't pick B because of the

"ought" part in P1 felt like it was leaving possibilities of the council voting for it. And if everyone abstains, it is essentially undecided so it gets left to the citizens. What if the vote turns out to be split with yes/no's with some abstains, then wouldn't the citizens have to decide? How would B guarantee that one should vote against it if your purpose is to not let the citizens vote?

For D, if not everyone abstains(meaning you can vote yes, you can vote no, whatever), it'll guarantee that the citizens will not decide which ties in with what I thought was implied connection above.

But ultimately, I unusually added so much more detail than I usually do for SA. I always stuck to the stimulus for other SA questions but that's because those questions were so much clear and set in determining facts than this one.

And I think I ultimately got this wrong because the "should" is a really important piece that I didn't recognize at first. And "ought" is basically should too. So under the Activist's view, council members SHOULD ONLY abstain or vote against(meaning no yes votes; one or the other). But under their hypothetical world, there is a possibility that they all abstain, and if they do that, then the citizens vote. So the conclusion is that one at least votes against it, and then B would absolutely complete this argument.

If anyone wants to give thoughts lmk #help

People have to re-take and stuff this week, so after that.

I got this wrong too because of how I interpreted those two sentences, but I realized why at the core, why E is wrong. E is essentially saying if you're not in a geographic region that is generally free of factors that affect lichen growth, then lichen is not useful. That is not true because we can factor growth rates for things that do affect it like shade and wind. I believe most people like myself, got it wrong because we read it as its usefulness is limited in these regions, which generally it is I think.

I'm interested for some tips on perfecting LR and getting better on RC!

So these videos will not be instantly uploaded? I would have to find time to attend them live since I am looking to test in October?

@tajira701 said:

Hi @kvh5qc297, thank you for your question! Former admissions officer here. Is it worth the agony? It depends. The median isn't the top reportable number that law schools have to report to the ABA and US News––the 75th percentile is. For schools like Yale, being above the 75th percentile is going to be a more competitive position than being at/just above median. Hope this helps! -Tajira

Hi, you're an admissions consultant so you definitely know more than me. But I thought only the medians get reported for USNews. (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology) The 25th/75th is mainly used to get a sense of class profiles.

For strengthening, do you feel like the same applies? Or do you think strengthening questions use less formulaic stuff like that? And I can't tell if all weaken questions do what you've described, but I feel like you're right on with that. I feel like it's more alternate explanations and I think those tend to be harder. Because I can see analogies, studies, correlation/causation pretty easily.

@maco4538797 said:

Yeah exactly! So the author's argument centers around a proposal and insinuates that this must be the course of action taken. So when someone offers a proposal, a weakening response would be something like: we have other options, or just because we can doesn't necessary mean we must. > @kvh5qc297 said:

This is really good stuff and I only thought about this earlier when I was looking at specific weaken questions that dealt with a survey. I found that the answer choice was something that said the survey wasn't reliable.

Could you further explain the last part about something being imperative (argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions). I can't really pinpoint it. Do you mean like having alternative possibilities for an outcome?

This is really good stuff and I only thought about this earlier when I was looking at specific weaken questions that dealt with a survey. I found that the answer choice was something that said the survey wasn't reliable.

Could you further explain the last part about something being imperative (argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions). I can't really pinpoint it. Do you mean like having alternative possibilities for an outcome?

For Q20, I think another reason why D is wrong is because in the last paragraph the author says that they are likely to recover less. But other than that, the author doesn't mention who gets paid more etc.

I think this is the hardest LR question I've seen, and I thought the weather one in the prior LR section of this test(PT 88 S2 Q21) was the hardest before I saw this one. But this one literally felt like it was still affirming the conclusion until I realized what answer choice B was saying.

I thought B was also saying that it was due traumatic event, but that's not what it's saying. It's saying that this group of people(trauma, no PTSD) have built up a lot of cortisone levels in response to previous stress, and because of that, they are able to not develop PTSD IF in the FUTURE they were to experience a traumatic event that would result in PTSD. They will not develop PTSD because of their high cortisone. So, this group already has high cortisone levels before any traumatic event that could happen.

Let's say "having a traumatic experience "isn't a factor for cortisol production. And the two groups the stimulus compared, Group 1(trauma, no PTSD) and group 2(no trauma, no PTSD);

Let's take away that group 1 had a traumatic event.

Group 1's cortisol level is more likely to be higher than group 2 still.

This question was a traumatic event.

I definitely see how C is a plausible answer choice, so I got kinda lucky I was really attached to E and picked it and moved on.

It is dumb though that with C, you can't assume that just because they were encouraged, they did those techniques. But on a different LR section of this same exact test, Q5, you have to make an assumption about a different technique not being emotionally compelling.

I think I picked E because it ties in more with the stimulus and it felt stronger with "most effective". They describe the workers as sitting long hours at desks and the laborers as always doing physical exercise at work. The workers are far more sedentary than the laborers so it can't be the office equipment that results in more injuries.

The explanation for D is masterful.

I thought this q was weird and the right answer choice was too simple. (despite the rating difficulty, I just had a good read on it). Like, it seems more like equating the premises and not the conclusion.

B is a pretty good AC in that it eliminates alternate hypotheses but it doesn't help us as much as A to lead to the conclusion that the termites burrowing causes it. E might sound good but I mean we already know there are termites around that area, of course, we'd expect their predators to be there as well.

I was between D and E, I had no idea what D was saying but I felt like there was a sufficient/necessary confusion going on because the only way you could really say most old houses have more than one apartment is if the first sentence said "All old houses have apartments" but it doesn't say that: it said "All apartments are in old houses" and goes on to conclude "Most old houses have more than one apartment". Like we still don't know how many old houses there are. There could be less than 50% of old houses that holds more than one apartment(which is actually what E is saying).

But, looking back: You have a relative idea of how many old houses there are and that it is 2 times less than apartments. Originally, I was thinking: Okay there could be 10 apartments and 50 old houses on a street. How can you go most? But I completely forgot about that second sentence. If you have 50 old houses, you should have 100 apartments.

I didn't pick E because I thought they didn't really neglect that possibility. They say that most houses have more than one apartment. But yes, it makes sense. I should've thought about this mathematically.

You could have 10 apartments and 5 houses. 2 of the houses have 5 apartments each. The other 3 houses don't have any apartments.