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

@mesposito886426 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.

Q23 - gut shot miss. It's clear the author doesn't like the subtraction method and therefore sees it as insufficient to weaken Uttal's view. Damn.

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

Q26 - look at these cheeky cheeks brah -.-

B - "consequences" - like.. one camp thinks Darwinism = fight to the death; the other = let's care about each other. That's the controversy, and they're describing one writer's perspective on it.

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 personally think this has less to do with inputting numbers than just weakening a hypothesis. Sorry in advance if it feels like I'm just mindlessly sidestepping your question.

They hypothesize every house has more than 1 apartment. This means the houses can have 1, 2, 3, or 4 apartments. E is posing an alternative - "there could actually be no houses with 1 or 2 apartments. All the houses could be 3 or more instead."

I was inputting numbers throughout BR but realized E was as clear cut as prime beef at Costco. Best of luck to you boss.

^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.