@SamBrenchley I basically live on campus lol

Leaving my WAJ here (as someone who picked C originally) because I agree with others that the standard explanation for C as incorrect is a little lacking.

--

Why wrong:

C - Doesn't do a good job of explaining a principle purpose of Passage B. Yes, Passage B does give one standard for athletic performance (beauty and purposiveness, re: Kant), but it does not argue that is how performances are actually judged. In contrast to that idea, Passage B actually says that "we fail to recognize that watching a sporting event may be a legitimate aesthetic event", implying that actually, most people do not judge athletic performance in this way.

Why right:

D - What Passage B does do is utilize Gumbrecht's argument in direct comparison to the "so-called high arts." Passage A is very direct about their comparison of evaluative criterion (which is why I picked C in the first place). B is less argumentative and more demonstrative, but does show a difference/comparison between these two judgements.

I got this question wrong four times before getting it right so sharing my WAJ in case other people wanted to pull out their hair reading it too:

For strengthen questions with another argument, don't get caught up in the other argument unless the stim explicitly says you need to discuss that one.

For all questions, the answer should (generally) include the non-linked item in the stimulus - for this question, that's "staked professional reputations."

Why wrong:

E - I thought that being valued by publishers would mean that's someone who uses concealed identities therefore stakes their reputation, but that's an assumption that's not required here. Because determining value by publisher =/= "staking your reputation" on something. Additionally, "concealed identity" IS NOT THE SAME as "special access to sources whose identity must be concealed." So this answer could be true, but it doesn't have to do with the teacher's conclusion.

C - I looked too much at the student's argument here, which is largely irrelevant. This basically says "if a journalist isn't known to be reliable, their statements may seem implausible." That doesn't relate to the concealing of sources being the source of a journalist's professional reputation. Rather, it confuses that relationship and says that unless a journalist already has a good reputation, their concealment may not be trusted.

Why right:

A - This directly supports the conclusion. It says that if a journalist has a statement rejected (which the argument says will happen unless it's high in plausibility, og, or interest), it will undermine their professional standing. That shows that if they don't follow the "logic of anecdotes" - aka "what makes an anecdote good", they could undermine their own professional reputation.

I was literally just looking for this chart today and was bummed that it went away :( It feels like the only way that I can track my output rather than my performance

I agree with many others that this is poorly constructed, but this is my take (as someone who incorrectly answered A).

How to eliminate A:

A states that "regular training" is necessary to keep one's skills a certain level, but it's not strong because it doesn't explain why children's training wouldn't be pointless. With this argument, Parent Q could say, okay - then let them learn those skills as adults.

Why C is correct:

C shows that, no matter what, increasing children's technical skills will be useful for them in the long term. So under Parent Q's framework (advancing tech), any kind of training would still be helpful overall. This does a better job at strengthening because it specifically addresses the issue at hand, which is whether or not children should receive computer training.

Why I still lowkey think the question is bad:

In general, I feel like strengthen/weaken should truly be that only one provides a true flaw or strengthening premise. I think that there is absolutely a world where (A) is the right answer to this question if (C) didn't exist.

My takeaway:

When multiple answer choices can be correct, return to the stem and fully identify the point at issue. The answer that more properly addresses that specific point is likely to be correct.

When the LSAT says something is "enthusiastic" it truly has to be enthusiastic.

In this passage, nativism and cosmopolitanism are depicted as opposing forces by the author. The author explicitly states that this tension has "divided the Hispanic-American consciousness." He doesn't say "We need to embrace both cosmopolitanism and nativism" (which would have led to answer A). He says "we need to reconcile these opposing tendencies" - that kind of implies a different solution altogether, although he believes there are elements necessary of both.

TLDR; I got the answer wrong (A) because I read the MP as "these things are both good" when the actual MP was "these things are in conflict but both have value."

looking for similar advice!! broke through to low 170s and now i live here😭