There's no diagram in the written analysis.

Typo on answer (E): "becauase"

The graphic in the explanation video really helps to understand why C is incorrect

There's a typo ('transofmration') in option (E)

I liked how J.Y.'s associated D with a "selection bias" problem :)

What does make an argument "emotional"?

This is a Argument Part question built around a causal chain. The author's strategy is to convince us through a step-by-step mechanism: temperature rise → restricted nutrients → phytoplankton loses food → zooplankton loses food → the rest of the food chain collapses → fish and seabird populations decline.

I crossed C, D, and E and C was the correct answer.

B: The statement isn't about feeding habits. Zooplankton would still eat phytoplankton if it were available. The issue is that the supply is being cut off, not that behavior is changing. Wrong framing. ✓

E: was my last hesitation. I thought: if it said "some organisms" instead of "all organisms" it might work. But even then, it wouldn't be right. The argument isn't about global warming as a general threat to organisms. It's about a very specific causal chain leading to very specific populations declining. Too broad regardless of "all." ✓

C is correct. The statement that zooplankton feed upon phytoplankton is a link in the causal chain, it's what connects the loss of phytoplankton nutrients to the eventual decline of fish and seabirds. And crucially, the effect on larger sea animals is indirect: temperature doesn't kill them directly, it starves their food source first. That's exactly what "indirectly" captures.

The lesson: in causal chain arguments, each premise is a link. The question is always: what does this specific link connect?

This is a Sufficient Assumption question. I correctly crossed A, D, and E, but initially chose C before landing on B in blind review.

C was a good trap. My brain mapped "small elite controlling information" to "government" and I remembered a question where a similar leap was required. But even if I grant that the elite is the government, C still doesn't tell us whether that leads to the population being denied vital information. And crucially, it says nothing about economic crises. C is irrelevant to the conclusion. Not sufficient. ✓

B is the bridge the argument needs. The premises tell us that in certain countries, the vast majority of the population is denied vital information about factors determining their welfare. The conclusion is that these countries will experience more frequent economic crises. B directly connects those two: as access to welfare-determining information decreases, economic crises become more frequent. That's exactly the missing link and with B assumed, the conclusion follows logically. Sufficient. ✓

This is a Find the Rule question. The task is to find the principle that most closely matches the chairperson's reasoning.

The chairperson's argument: the board should not rush to expand into two countries without further consideration, because both countries are politically unstable. Note that the chairperson isn't saying "never expand". Just "be cautious and consider further."

A almost got me. It correctly connects expansion with politically unstable countries but "never" is too extreme. The chairperson only proposed further consideration, not a permanent ban on expansion. One word killed this answer. Too strong. ✓

B I correctly crossed. The chairperson is arguing against rushing into expansion despite profit opportunities. B says the opposite. Wrong direction. ✓

C I left uncrossed but it's wrong. Whether political stability is the most important consideration isn't in the chairperson's statement. That's an extrapolation beyond what was actually argued. Out of scope. ✓

E I left uncrossed but it's also wrong. The chairperson never says governmental incentives should always be disregarded and "always" is another extreme word. Also, it's not clear that political instability is directly connected to governmental incentives here. Too strong and off-target. ✓

D is perfect. "Always be cautious" maps exactly to "should not allow incentives to entice us without further consideration." It connects expansion with politically unstable countries and prescribes caution, which is precisely what the chairperson proposed.

The key lesson: A and D are very close, but A says "never expand" while D says "always be cautious." The chairperson never closed the door. Just asked for more thought before walking through it.

This is a Weaken question. The argument is a classic correlation-to-causation jump: children with impulsive behavior are twice as likely to have a gene variant that increases dopamine sensitivity, therefore the gene variant causes thrill-seeking behavior. Red flag spotted immediately.

A: I left uncrossed but it's wrong. Even if many impulsive adults aren't unusually sensitive to dopamine, the author never claimed that all adults with the gene variant are impulsive. This doesn't contradict the premise. It's an illusory inconsistency. Doesn't weaken. ✓

C: confused me a little, but the key is: whether children's behavior gets labelled as thrill-seeking by adults is irrelevant. The argument is about what causes impulsive behavior, not what adults call it. The label doesn't affect the potential causal relationship. Doesn't weaken. ✓

D: tells us many people exhibit behaviors as adults that they didn't as children. That's generally true of most things in life. It doesn't say anything specific about the gene variant or impulsive behavior in this argument. Doesn't weaken. ✓

E: suggests the gene variant is correlated with other behaviors besides thrill-seeking. That might mean it causes more things than the author claims but it doesn't suggest it doesn't cause thrill-seeking. It's a failed alternate explanation. Doesn't weaken. ✓

B: is the answer. If it's not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior, then the research identifying "impulsive behavior" in children becomes unreliable. The entire correlation the argument is built on collapses. If we can't be sure the children in the study were actually behaving impulsively, we can't be sure the gene variant correlates with it, let alone causes it.

The lesson: in Phenomenon-Hypothesis arguments, weakening the reliability of the data that establishes the correlation is just as powerful as providing an alternate explanation.

This is a Sufficient Assumption question. During the test I drew the conditional chain correctly but I still got it wrong because I missed something crucial about the conclusion.

The chain from the premises is clear:

env problem NOT from gov → needs consumer habit changes → must be economically enticing

I crossed A (the correct answer) and chose B. Let me work through all of them.

B talks about environmental problems that do stem from government mismanagement — but the entire chain is about problems that don't. B also says nothing about serious ecological problems. It doesn't connect to anything we need. Not sufficient. ✓

C tells us that consumer habit changes can be made economically enticing. But we already know from the premises that if something needs consumer habit changes, it must be economically enticing. C adds nothing new to the chain. Not sufficient. ✓

E tells us that few serious ecological problems can be solved by consumer habit changes — but that doesn't tell us what is required to solve them. Maybe most require government action, which doesn't need to be economically enticing. E gives us no path to the conclusion. Not sufficient. ✓

D was my biggest struggle. D says most environmental problems not caused by government are serious ecological problems — "most As are Bs." But what we actually need is the reverse: most serious ecological problems are not caused by government — "most Bs are As." Wrong direction. ✓

A is the bridge I missed entirely. If few serious ecological problems result from government mismanagement, then most serious ecological problems fall into the "not from gov" category — which means most of them enter the chain, require economically enticing solutions, and few will be solved without them. That's exactly the conclusion.

What I failed to notice during the test: "serious ecological problems" is a brand-new concept in the conclusion. The premises never mention it. The correct answer had to connect that new concept to the existing chain and A does exactly that.

This is a Most Strongly Supported question. I chose C and left B and E blank. Let me work through what happened.

The key constraint with MSS questions: the correct answer must stay strictly within what the text tells us. No extrapolating, no going further than the premises allow.

C was my trap. Non-Euclidean geometry being more complete than Euclidean geometry is not supported. The text only says it's more useful for developing certain areas of scientific theory. Useful ≠ more complete. I over-read it.

E is similarly unsupported. The text never tells us what qualities scientists prioritise in a theory — whether usefulness ranks above mathematical correctness or vice versa. That's a step beyond what the text actually says.

B is the answer, and the path through the text is precise: scientists now believe non-Euclidean geometry is much more useful, and the cosmological theory most widely accepted by scientists as accurate relies on non-Euclidean geometry. If scientists accept that theory as accurate, they must believe non-Euclidean geometry can correctly represent the universe — which means classical Euclidean geometry is no longer considered uniquely capable of doing so. That's exactly what B says.

The lesson: in MSS questions, "more useful" and "more complete" are not the same thing. The text gives you the words. Don't swap them out.

Necessary Assumption question. I chose B (wrong) and eliminated C on the actual test, so I want to understand all five answers.

A uses prescriptive language: "should be a reflection." The argument makes a descriptive claim — does price indicate quality? — not a normative one about what price ought to do. Since the argument never goes there, this assumption isn't needed. Not necessary. ✓

B was my trap. The conclusion is that expensive wine is not always good — meaning it's sometimes not good. B claims price is never an accurate indication of quality, which is a much stronger statement. Negating B (price is sometimes accurate) doesn't destroy the argument at all — the argument is perfectly compatible with price usually indicating quality, as long as it doesn't do so always. Not necessary. ✓

E introduces "lesser-known vineyards" — a concept that never appears in the argument. The argument is purely about reputation affecting price, and whether that means expensive wine is always good. Whether lesser-known vineyards price their wines accurately is simply out of scope. Not necessary. ✓

C is the answer, and the negation test makes it clear. If vineyard reputation always indicated wine quality, then a higher reputation → higher price → higher quality would hold without exception — and the conclusion would collapse. The author must be assuming that reputation doesn't always track quality, otherwise the whole argument falls apart. Necessary. ✓

The key lesson for me: in Necessary Assumption questions, watch for answers that are too strong (like B's "never") — the argument often only needs something weaker. And when confused, use the negation test: negate the answer and ask if the argument falls apart.

This was the type of question where almost every answer seemed to weaken the argument (except B lol) so I'm going to work through each one to understand why A, C, and D weaken it, while E doesn't.

The argument rests on an analogy: natural pesticides don't harm us, so synthetic ones won't either. To weaken it, you need to show a meaningful difference between the two. To not weaken it (the EXCEPT), you'd want to show they're actually similar.

A introduces a crucial distinction: humans have had millennia to adapt to natural pesticides, but not to synthetic ones. That's a direct attack on the assumption that our tolerance for one transfers to the other. Weakens. ✓

C points out that natural pesticides are less potent than synthetic ones. Again > a meaningful difference. "We handle the mild version fine" doesn't mean we'll handle the stronger version fine. Weakens. ✓

D tells us that synthetic pesticides harm a wide variety of organisms, whereas natural ones are targeted. If they affect a broad range of living things, humans could easily be among them. Another difference that undermines the analogy. Weakens. ✓

E is the odd one out: if synthetic pesticides have chemical structures similar to natural ones, that actually supports the analogy the argument is built on. It closes the gap between the two types instead of opening it. This doesn't weaken the argument. It strengthens it. Does NOT weaken. ✓

The pattern here: every wrong answer is pointing to a difference between natural and synthetic pesticides. The right answer points to a similarity. Once you see the argument is an analogy, the question becomes almost mechanical.

I got this one wrong on the actual test because I read it too fast and never properly identified the conclusions. On blind review, I read carefully: "is scientifically inadequate" (Chai) vs. "it is acceptable as a scientific term" (Dodd) and B clicked immediately.

So why did I pick D the first time?

Looking back, D feels tempting because it mentions scientific terminology, which is exactly what the conversation is about. But the keyword that kills it is "it is important that" -- that's prescriptive language. D is asking what goals terminology should accomplish and whether those goals should relate to science. Neither Chai nor Dodd talks about goals at all. They're both making descriptive claims about what is or isn't scientifically acceptable in a specific case. Not prescribing what terminology ought to achieve.

B, on the other hand, maps perfectly: Chai says using the same term for two biological forms with different lineages is scientifically unacceptable. Dodd says it's scientifically acceptable. That's a direct disagreement, and that's exactly what B captures.

The lesson for me: in Disagree questions, find the conclusions first, not the topic. D shared the topic (scientific terminology) but missed the point of contention entirely.

I got this question right but flagged it because I left it to the end of the section and spent more than twice the suggested time on it.

Looking back at the notable assumptions, I'm concluding that I have a certain difficulty identifying correlation vs. causation, and that's the main assumption at play here.

There is a phenomenon and there is a hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weak: it treats human arrival as the cause of the birds' extinction. But what if it's just a coincidence and the birds got a disease? Arrival doesn't imply causation. For all we know, those humans were vegan 🙂

What helped me get this right was thinking of an alternate explanation. And there it was: C!

I was tempted by A because my brain latched onto "predators". I thought: "Great! Tigers and eagles eating those little birds." But then I actually read it: "had few natural predators." Knowing they had some enemies doesn't mean they had enough enemies to drive them to extinction, unless those predators were exceptionally lethal. The Cristiano Ronaldo of the jungle, if you will. But that's an assumption I'd be adding, not one the argument provides. In the end, I concluded that A actually strengthens the argument, because it eliminates a potential alternate hypothesis rather than weakening the main one.

Hey, Ethan!

I’m a first-gen Portuguese lawyer, founder of a climate litigation non-profit (+170 legal proceedings) and former advisor to the President of Portugal. I’ve been the youngest at every table I sat. I already gave lectures at Law Schools, including Columbia Law.

I have a track record of awards and achievements, including Forbes 30 Under 30, US State Department, Fulbright, etc

I want to transition to the US Legal system so I can play in a bigger pool and, for that, I need a JD/LLM.

I’ve been thinking what approach is better to my essay. “Activist”, lawyer, first-gen, “leader”? I had the “luck” of doing too many things with 24y old and now I’m quite unsure on how to leverage this and, perhaps, also afraid that “climate” issues are not seen with the right eyes due to the current administration policies.

Thank you 😊

We can do it!!

@MariaFranco Olá!! Send me a message :)

@Julia Added you to the group

@asherketchum Added you to the group :)

For anyone reaching out: to make this easier for both of us, please include in your DM:

1. Current score (if known) + target score

2. Test date

3. Target schools

4. Hours per week you're committing

5. Your timezone

6. Plus: LinkedIn profile

Saves us both time and helps me figure out if we're a good fit. Thanks!

Interested in the next one :)