This question is a fine example of why isolating the conclusion is important. During my pre-phrase I correctly identified the flaw - there is an overlap between the people who will die from I diseases and other diseases, so the number of folks dying from other causes may go up if I is eliminated. However, when I headed to the answer choices I picked E under timed conditions. I eliminated C because it sounded too "generic", having not mentioned either disease category explicitly, and E connected the two relevant variables (just in the wrong way). You have to be critical of all the answer choices and relate them back to the task at hand. The conclusion is talking about decreasing the number of deaths - E doesn't get you there. While C specifically talks about the risk of death. LSAC just hides the reasoning in generic and convoluted terminology. I used to have the same problem with PSA questions. I would eliminate answer choices that didn't reference the topics in the stim, sounded too strong, or provided a principle. After shifting my thinking, I was able to find the right answer choices. The same applies here.

I have no idea how E leads you to believe that we should prefer the gliding hypothesis. Lots of different birds spend their time in trees whether or not they know how to fly from the ground or just glide, if your predator cannot climb trees then trees are a good place to hide either way. Aren't we looking for something that makes the gliding hypothesis seem more likely than the running hypothesis? In my mind E makes both hypotheses probable. If anything it makes the standard assumption more likely because we need new evidence to overturn it. Can someone explain how E does that? (I understand how A doesn't strengthen, I just want to know how E does).#help

Why do we get to assume that helping people get along is beneficial to society?

I'm fine missing questions for dumb ass reasons like this. There wasn't any reasoning error. I apparently just can't read. Nothing you can do about that.

For questions like 11 I get drawn in by what I think the paragraph says and overlook what the paragraph does. I sort of disagree with JY's analysis for why B is wrong. He says that it just isn't the case that events in the individual's life aren't referenced in naming practices. To me at least the "several names" one receives reference the "ritual initiations" they are a part of. However, that isn't why the answer is wrong. B doesn't do what we are tasked with - describing the purpose of the passage. B happens, but that independently isn't part of the author's argument. Subtly we are being asked, how does paragraph two play into the larger structure of the passage? When looked at through that lens. It is clear why B is wrong. As stated, B doesn't really play into the argument. The reflection of events ins't ever discussed as a reason for conferring semantic meaning to names. D on the other hand is just another way of saying that, "Hopi names have deeper, semantic meaning that what has been theorized by Mills or Strauss."

Upon review, I don't think C violates either of the conditions. I know a lot of people think that "can't determine" violates "MUST ENSURE." I think all of that is kind of irrelevant. When looking at that condition that must be met, it says that, "the state must ensure majority ownership of the resultant company." Just because the state can't determine ownership of the purchasing company doesn't mean they can't determine ownership of the resultant company. For example, in the conditions of the sale, they might stipulate that regardless of the company's current ownership structure, there must be a majority ownership of the resultant company. So, the company may change its ownership structure to accommodate that condition of the sale. That is a longwinded way of saying that current ownership isn't the same as future ownership.

I felt so stupid on BR. I fell into autopilot reading the stem and misread it as asking which is most consistent, since that is what I am used to seeing. This mistake had devastating effects.I spend over three minutes on this question only to get it wrong. This in turn led to a time problem on the back end of the section. Upon reflection, I should have known something funky was going on. The misread of the stim led me to two answer choices C and D, which both seemed consistent. I then floundered and tried to find a justification for one of the ACs. Instead of spending two minutes deciding between two seemingly right answer choices, which violates the principle of uniqueness in ACs, I should have taken a step back to make sure that I had a proper understanding of what was happening. A quick reread of the stem would have led me to E while saving time. Good lesson to learn. When something seems off, reevaluate what you've done up to that point.

Another reason to eliminate A is that is uses the blanket statement of "non-QWERTY keyboards". It doesn't specify the non-QWERTY keyboards that have been found to encourage more efficient typing speeds. I'm sure a ton of configurations have been used that are less efficient than QWERTY. This statement sort of assumes that QWERTY is one of the least efficient configurations that have been tested. Based on the information we are given, I don't think we can make that assumption.

Q12

I fell for C, but now I think I am seeing the light. If C were true that would make the author hold the position of referee, with no interest in the gravity of the claims or objective truth in the matter. That clearly isn’t the case. While there is no explicit endorsement (obviously since it’s tacit), you get the sense that the author cares about who is right. The structure of the passage as well as the tidbits of interjection in paragraph two help create that feeling.

Very interested! Should we start a group chat?

Question 21 is a great learning opportunity and, frankly, is an awesome question. I fell for C because I was convinced by the strength of the claim which seemed to align with what the author was doing - drawing an analogy between Morrison's book and jazz as an art form. C, however, contrary to what JY is saying, is factually incorrect. The very analogy is saying that individuals are given a spotlight to shine as distinct from the ensemble. "...Individuals within the fixed scope of the narrative," are, "given the responsibility of relating their parts of the overarching story." That is direct evidence against C. This same evidence can be used as evidence for D. A simple shifting of perspective can happen at an individual level. The fact that there is a cast of characters, each with a unique voice, is an additional part of the structural analogy. I didn't have that high of a resolution understanding under timed conditions, and I think it is difficult to see why D is right. That being said, I think this question is attainable through POE. C is clearly wrong, don't fall for the shiny answer.