Yo the RC was tough as nails - fuuuuk. Life can wait another cycle maybe..?

@ said:

Shout out to my proctor Gissel. Gissel had me hitting the ground running in less than ten minutes. Love you girl xoxo

There's some full-fledged angel queens out there - I hope I get one tomorrow 10:50am CST - o Lord have mercy..

Q14 - HAHA. Bro, this is the millionth time I've seen the LSAT do this. They ask an MSS about some minute small subtle teeny shrimp-size detail in the passage. You really gotta think outside the box for these lol. Everything is relevant!

omg "urban pollution" - I read A and I was like "u dumbfuck, that still raises pollution!!" But the lsat clapped back with "I said urban pollution, you dUmBFuCk"

There's a lot of fluff here but the guy's just saying

We want a representative sample.

We're using the national census.

If we make it voluntary, less people will participate.

Thus, our sample will be inaccurate.

the only real jump is from "less people participating" and "sample will be inaccurate." But the issue is that less people doesn't imply unrepresentative. You can still have a representative sample from a small sample size.

As JY said, C is the only AC that picked up on this premise to conclusion structure.

B is a flaw - "contends an argument is false on the grounds of that an inadequate argument has been given against it." The author also doesn't claim falsity. It claims "it maybe be a hasty inference" which implies there's more required to reach it.

Undermining by presenting additional premises is showing the insufficiency of the premise. The premise requires additional premises to follow into the conclusion. I got clowned.

really wanted to see a link between flower color and pesticide resistance, and I just couldn't open my mind to other possibilities. E strengthens because flower color is basically the most difficult of things do be passed down between related plant species. This makes it more likely that anything else other than flower color will be more easily passed down, including this pesticide resistance. #hurts

I'm so ded lol. I chose D knowing 100% full well that's wrong. I guess A works. You don't need both. "HeartShapedBox" has a great explanation down below in my view if ya wanna check that out.

Weaken analogies by pointing out a relevant difference between the analogies. I read D as it pointed out a difference and just clicked it and moved on. I got bit in the ass by this so many times where the correct AC is actually E. They sneak D in there because it sounds fairly relevant and you just gtfo. My ass is full of LSAT bruises fam fuck.

I don't even remember reading E, perhaps because I didn't read it? lol

LOL my clown ass saw the jump to inaccurate but of course neglected it. What if the best products are the ones that give the biggest commissions lol Then the information would be hella accurate.

The correct AC is saying the jump to "inaccurate" solely based on the source of those claims. The source is referring to the salespeople or the fact that they want commissions. The error is that they base the inaccuracy on the source. There's no reasonable similarity between the two, at least from what's stated in the stimulus.

surveys are plump with overgeneralization and sampling errors.

We jumped from a survey about one novel to all novels. Maybe this novel was exceptional... perhaps because the dialects were scattered (?) lol.

brain sharted the MP Q on this.

We're given a phenomenon - the improbability of earth's life and physics. Some explain the improbability through the multiverse. The author comes in and challenges the "fine-tuned-ness" and attacks the conventional methods that people use.

The author's main and perhaps only contention is regarding the fine tuned nature of physics. Maybe it's not as fine tuned as we think. The discussion on multiverse and all that was just fluff to get the the author's point. Not to say they're insignificant but FUCK.

CENSURE - "disapproval." FUK.

Damn. This passage really relied on understanding what they meant about that range. That should've been obvious given that science passages often introduce a scientific concept.. I really have to focus on that.

There's a glass transition range. This means if it's below that range, it's a solid. If it's above that range it's a liquid. Anywhere along that range, a glass can switch to liquid properties.

Q24 - A is wrong because if it has the properties of a solid, then we're looking at the point "below the lower end of the range." This means that glass is a solid. C is wrong because if we reach that transition temperature, the glass is behave as a liquid, not a solid! We reached the TRANSITION temperature. It transitioned. D is correct because if you reach the transition temperature, you will start to be liquid-y, which is the same as "flow."

Q25 - JY's so damn spot on. The stem asks "why did people think window glass flows downward." A is such a naive mistake I made. Who would think a crystalline structured thing flows? It's a crystal. Maybe there's some exception out there, but I don't imagine crystals, or rocks, flowing like a liquid. B - the author would think this is the erroneous assumption. Amorphous structures doesn't cause it to behave in liquid form. The structure could make it solid or liquid.

Q27 - The transition temperature was mentioned in the first and third paragraphs. None of the AC's refer to the first paragraph's information. But C is definitely infer-able from the third. It says that the minimum temperature required to flow is 350 degrees. The range is "few hundred" so we can infer that the max temp in is far above 350. The minimum is 350 and the range extends a few hundred above that.

I chose D as a panic but what in the actual fuck? Of course it affects the tendency? It's precisely the thing that affects the tendency to flow LOL. If we're in that range or after it, it flows.

This was hard asf.

Q15 - They DISMISSED her.. because "you didn't explain the inner-sun." They disagreed with her. Their wives hated them and projected their anger toward her. What a sack of bitches. E is so wrong. It's Deez nutss

Q16 - bro. I didn't read the first sentence of that paragraph. I also just filled in holes. I knew her research didn't help Einstein (A was wrong). I also knew her view wasn't "modified" (D is wrong) but I still chose A anyway. It explains why the scientists projected their anger. They didn't know what nuclear fusion was. FUUUUk.

omg they're sooo cheeky.

Q25 - "fiction writing." She's a fiction writer LMAO, so presumably she thinks fiction writing will be helpful. I am soo ded.

LOL ok so basically..

The enemies wrote "Cali is bad."

Here's what the records show for other rulers.

"Nero is bad."

"Pontius is bad."

"Pilates is bad."

"Yo mama is bad."

"Cali is bad."

LOL bro I'm ded. How'd they think of this? The fact that they all look the same raises suspicion if Cali was actually bad lol. The enemies are the source and look what they wrote.

Reminds me of that scene in BenchWarmers where the guy hands his birth certificate "I am 12." ahahaa

Ads influence yogurt sales more than milk.

But Largeco experienced the opposite.

So are they ads full of shit?

Nah, the ads are fine. Ads do influence yogurt sales more but we just had a significant decline. This protects the first principle. Damn dude.

^I'm nervous af tams2018. I see you grinding out in the trenches too. You got this. I believe in you!!

I struggled with C on Q5 for a a couple days. I just realized the weakness of it that makes E the best AC. Passage A says "there's no obligation" for juries to care about the case, but this doesn't mean that they don't. There's no indication that juries won't either. C leans us toward a direction that was not pushed toward by Passage A at all.

Q10 - E is saying "that a dumbass view" not "you misunderstood it." They didn't commit to the view! It's also "perilous" so it's a horrible ass view.

Q14 - just wow. JY you did an incredible analysis on this. Hats off to you, my Lord. A is wrong because wtf. B is a false statement - children gave more inaccurate reports. C is also false since we're saying adults are not infallible. E is wrong because it discusses observing other's thoughts. D is all that's left. A, B, D, and E had strong counters to them. They're either FALSE or completely irrelevant. DAMNN.

Likelihood of making cognitive errors would support the inferential hypothesis. Adults aren't likely to make these "cognitive errors" since they're experts at inferences about their own thoughts.

Final thoughts - yo this passage was so bonkers but honestly like 14 was the only hard one. The other ones were grabbable by just seeing that this was a discussion between one hypothesis and the other. I didn't do too hot though but js saying!

C is just such a horrible AC oh my goodness. I chose it. I learned some concepts here that don't exactly apply LOL but kind of do.

1. Attempting sampling error.

The argument attributes increased motivation to the difference in the videos. But it could just be that "Participants who were already more motivated" could have been the group in the first group. That would take credit away from the video. Regardless of the video, these people were likely to be more motivated. I feel like C is trying to say that but it doesn't say anything like it.

2. Disregarding Averages

This AC is trying to say "the more motivated people" were actually not more motivated. Even if this was the case, it's okay because we said average. We didn't say "if you watch the self-video, you increased your motivation." Telling me that a self-video person didn't increase motivation doesn't weaken an "on average" argument because it's "on average." You could have people who's motivation did not increase, or even people who's motivation decreased in the self-video group since all that matters is that their average was higher at the end.

Misinterpreting Evidence oh.my.god.

65+ vote more than 35 year olds. This could potentially show political behavior increases overtime. This could actually show a bunch of things. But they're saying political connections decrease over time.

That is technically a possibility but I need to assume that those 65+ bracket people also didn't vote much when they were younger. If Mr. Jack, who is now 65, votes, but at 40 he also voted, then his political behavior did not decrease over time.

Okay, I'm done. I can't even finish this chain of thought. JK let's finish it.

When A says early stage vs later stage, it's calling out a sampling error. We need data from the 65 year olds when they were younger, and we also need date from the 40 years olds when they get older.

If 65 year olds were great voters at 40 and at 65, and the current 40 year olds hate voting and continue to hate voting til 65, then we can say political disconnect has happened between those two generations. Maybe not conclusively, but better than the stimulus. B - E can smd.

Read the commas! Read the god damn appositives!!

ANY construction (not just ours) needs a pipeline COMMA a large body of water COMMA. That's already one thing we need right there. And then it says "AND" a transmission line. And then it says "people's support." That's three things we need for a NEW plant.

That's a whole ass principle. It's generally speaking.

The author takes us to a particular country. A specific instance! We have transmissions. We also have three bodies of water (the pipeline thing) but FUCK! We don't have people's support IN THESE BODIES OF WATER.

I initially just thought "we can't build these damn mfs here" and as JY said, C says that in a sneaky c*nt-like way (he didn't say that latter part).

We have transmissions. We also have the bodies of water. But it's just that the people are against construction near those bodies. C is summarizing the status of the country for us. "If we don't expand the pipeline (looking into other bodies of water), then the site is unsuitable for construction." That's true.

As it stands right now, we can't build on the site because we're limited by people's opposition to these pipelines. So if we don't expand them, then we're limited to these three pipelines. The people oppose these three so the site is unsuitable for these pipelines and thus the fucking site. Cheeky little shit.

And JY's lil pick up on A about "new" is just such bonkers! I got tricked by another lawyer and my client is fucked because I didn't pick that up. We can't build NEW plants, so we can't get energy from those since.. obviously.. we don't have them?! But our current ones could be supercharged with Zeus-like lightning and provide energy for all of earth for the next 20 billion years.

A clowned me. Ankle broken. Ended my damn career. Fuck you.

I admit this was hard.. but the difficulty wasn't rocket science it was just.. I just couldn't figure out wtf they were doing. These lil prick ass punk ass stupid ass lil shit lol.

Science fiction creates an appetite.

That appetite cannot be satisfied.

What does that mean? It means science fiction creates something that cannot be satisfied.

Gaps spur discontent.

Science creates discontent.

You see what these lil pricks did there? They said science creates an appetite. Then they say science creates discontent. Why? Because gaps create discontent. They equated science fiction with gaps.

Gaps → discontent

-- -- -- --- -- --

Science → discontent.

The missing piece is literally Science → gaps, but instead of science they said "appetite cannot be satisfied." It's nothing new UGH. Let's just dominate these mfs man!!