when I find a stimulus like this just throwing info at me that I may not be able to keep straight in my mind, writing it out helps even if it takes me a couple more seconds.

This phenomenon is actually (at least tangentially) covered in an earlier reading passage. I can't remember the test number though!

I got this wrong because I had such a hard time understanding what the conflict is that I had to address.

Not timed, I could see it was: why is it that there was a reduction in allergens, but no reduction in symptoms?

A: I picked this without fully understanding this AC. I thought it was saying that symptoms can be caused by other things besides the allergens, such as the bedding. But this is just a comparative statement that allergens from begging are more irritating than from the carpet. I just came back/panicked and picked it.

D: explains the conflict. the reduction wasn't enough to lower symptoms

I find that if I am having a hard time understanding the stimulus I should skip, come back, write down shorthand what helps me understand/digest the stimulus

This is very similar to a weakening question on the 7sage weaken/strengthen question webinar. There is a question from a later tests that talks about the incidence of a virus in cows and that in the past less cows died of the disease and now more cows died of the disease. The author concludes it must be because the virus is more virulent now. The question stems asks to weaken, and the answer is that only the most severe cases are reported/the milder cases are treated so they don't count in the cases reported.

The plan is to buy old cars to reduce pollution rather than redesign the plant.

Cars that predate 1980 cause 30 percent of pollution. The plant only causes 4%.

Old cars: which old cars is the company buying? Are those the ones that contribute to pollution? are they cars that are not driving? You cannot assume old cars means the ones that are contributing to the 30 percent pollution. I did not pick up on this at all!

A: I picked A because I thought it was saying that of all the cars driven in the area, only 1% are before 1980. I thought that if it is one percent, it meant that actually it is a really tiny amount and doesn't contribute 30%. I assumed that one percent meant that it couldn't actually make that big of a difference and so really the plan to redesign the plant is better. You can't assume this just because it's one percent. One percent can still cause 30 percent of the pollution. and as JY says, this could even strengthen the argument because if it's only 1 percent of cars that cause this pollution then it seems like it's easy to carry through, but the cars and reduce local air pollution.

B: I saw this answer choice and thought it was extremely irrelevant. It doesn't have an impact on which approach reduces pollution more. It just says that the company will save money by buying old cars.

C: After watching the video, I see that this one is correct because If none of the cars that the company is buying are actually contributing to the pollution despite them being "old cars" then they won't actually reduce air pollution. This was really hard for me to see because "old cars" in the conclusion was conflated in my mind with the cars that account for 30 percent of the pollution.

D: the set of post 1980 cars is irrelevant for this stimulus

E: no one cares about citizens groups.

Economists says money (financial rewards) is why people choose one job over another.

Argument: They are wrong (money does not influence people as much as they think).

Premise: In some surveys, at least 51% of people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job.

This argument assumes that just because a high salary isn’t the most desirable feature of a job, it can’t be the primary factor/strongest incentive for choosing a job.

Also how many surveys?

Are the people truthful in answering the question?

There could be other more desirable features about different jobs but ultimately a person could still choose to pick a job based on money.

Also financial rewards is not the same as SALARY. I really missed this when I first read the argument. So subtle.

A: You can be paid well and not buy what you want. This is irrelevant.

B: I think that this is a wrong answer because 1) how many surveys? And 2) I feel like the author would just be like okay your surveys say X but mine say Y. Agree to disagree. This shows that if the jobs are the same, people do care about money and want the higher paying job. This would seem on the face to show that these people are motivated by money, but how representative is this situation to what people have to decide generally? And what would people say if the jobs were not identical?

C: I think this is correct because this shows that what could be a desirable feature of a job could still be related to financial benefits, which would show that people are motivated by money in their job choices.

D: People like difficult jobs when they feel appreciated. Irrelevant.

E: Some people? This is weak. Also This says some people don’t know that high paying jobs mean you have less free time. This is irrelevant.

Disclosure of statistics undermines government's goal of making public more informed.

This is because airlines will be less likely to give a complete report.

So this is assuming that the airlines will not give a complete report, so even giving an incomplete report undermine's the government goal of making the public more informed?

This assumes that the only good thing is a complete report. this assumes that an incomplete report makes the public less informed? But isn't some data better than no data?

A - this gets at the issue. Incomplete reports can still provide important information/inform the public

B - descriptively inaccurate - the author does not assume this

C - I almost picked this one because I thought this was somehow relevant to the fact that airlines would restrict information if the reports are made public. 1) this answer choice is information about airline safety - not the statistics itself. These two things are different 2) the author does not talk about how information in general about airline safety is impossible without govt disclosure. I think this would be different if the answer choice actually had to do with the statistics

D - this is irrelevant to the argument - the author does not talk at all about who is responsible for accurate reporting of safety information

E - this is descriptively accurate but completely irrelevant to the argument. This says the author fails to consider whether the publication of airline safety statistics will impact airline revenue. This is not stated at all

Premise: Most history courses required readings that did not discuss indigenous history or contemporary Africa/Asian history

Premise: Most universities no longer do this

Therefore: Most universities offer more in depth cosmopolitan education

This argument is linking the Africa/Asia/Indigenous history to the idea of cosmopolitan.

We don’t know what cosmopolitan education means. Maybe it has nothing to do with knowing about the history of other cultures.

Also JY talks in the video about the importance of how it's just a textbook. There are other aspects to the class.

Also History courses are not the same as education overall.

We need to define cosmopolitan in relationship to this.

A: this AC is about what university students find interesting. This doesn’t matter.

B: This AC has many. How many. One? Two? Three? Ten? Also this says students at universities whose courses cover all periods/cultures participate in study abroad programs. This is a totally new idea and does not strengthen because this has nothing to do with the premises at all. Also why does this make it so that universities today offer a more in-depth and cosmopolitan education?

C: This is a perfect answer and links coverage in textbooks to cosmopolitanism. This makes the premises much more relevant to the conclusion.

D: This AC says universities have history courses that are culturally inclusive (what does that even mean) and other subject areas at those schools may not always be as inclusive. This is extremely abstract and weak.

E: Students in history courses that are only required to read textbooks that cover the history of a single culture will not get an in-depth/cosmopolitan education from these courses alone. So this is saying that Students could get a cosmopolitan education, but not from a course that requires you to only read a book that only covers a single culture. This is a strong answer but it is not the correct answer because 1) the premises are not about textbooks that only discuss a the history of a single culture and 2) we know that a history course that only requires you to read a book about the history of one single culture isn’t sufficient for a cosmopolitan education, but what about when the courses now have textbooks that deal with the history of various cultures? This answer choice discusses something that is not relevant to strengthening the premise-conclusion structure.

This question was a time suck. It only has a two star rating, but it was really hard for me! I spent 2:32. Way too much time.

Stimulus:

The effort to set up rehabilitation centers to save sea otters was not worth while.

C: The effort was not worth it

Premise: only 18% were rehabilitated and survived

Premise: that percentage is even lower because the number of dead otters is higher.

This argument assumes that even though the percentage is low, it wasn’t worth it to rehabilitate them? Also this states that the low percentage would be even lower if you could find the other dead otters. How do they know how many more died since they didn't find them?

- This question is asking for a question that calls into evidence the support, so this has to do with the numbers/what was found.

- To weaken this we need something that gets at the data?

A: Do other sea otter species exist in areas not affected by the spill? This is an irrelevant AC.

B: I believe this AC is correct because the argument states that the percentage is low, and it would be even lower because more died than were found. But how can we know that if we haven’t found them?

C: Did you trap otters that weren’t affected? irrelevant

D: Were other species affected? irrelevant

E: What was the cost per animal? Irrelevant – this would be relevant if the argument had to do with how much money was spent but the argument says it was not worthwhile because so few were saved.

21Analogy

A- More than one person sharing a cost?

B-payment provided only if there is success. And it is an increase in the fee. This matches.

C- payment divided up among a group of people equally according to risk? no

D-this is so irrelevant. This is not analogous. It’s just how insurance works

E- I did not like this because of a loan. Because the payment must always be made – it’s not dependent on a success.

22 I picked B both times but this is wrong – it’s A

Passage states

A – this is supported because of the last paragraph: I think I just didn’t remember this answer and so skipped over it and justified B.

B-I picked this because I thought that the contingency fee prevents lawyers from gaining disproportionately so I thought this meant it stops them from getting more than they deserve but them gaining disproportionately has nothing to do with what they deserve to be paid or not. The ideas are not the same

C- we have no idea what the other recommendations are and if they will be implemented

D-wrong because this is not discussed. It could or it could not? We assume it might though based on the last paragraph in general but we don’t know about this one specifically

E – wrong because we only know one type of contingency fee that is discussed; also the information is wrong – it says percentage is based on the damages, not the baseline fee.

23 Main Point

-criticize a proposal

A – not defending

B-not talking about a legal system, just a proposal

C-this view is not discussed. No one says it will worsen the situation

D – the author doesn’t talk about the overall impact on the legal system.

E- explain the perform (paragraph ½) and criticize is (3/4)

24 Detail

A – the length of time that a trial may last may be difficult to predict but it’s not mentioned in the passage.

B – this may be true, but it’s not mentioned in the passage

C – this is explicitly stated in paragraph 3

D – this isn’t what makes it difficult – this is just the recommendation

E – I picked this under timed conditions because I thought this said that lawyers would be forced to spend more time on the contingency fee investigation than the case. This isn’t an either or, it’s that they would be forced to investigate legal issues, but also other issues. It doesn’t say one happens at the expense of the other, which is why E is wrong.

25 Meaning of phrase in context “gaining disproportionately”

A- the point is to receive higher payment to make up for the risk

B – this is correct because gaining disproportionately from awards from damages means getting more of the money than is reasonable from the damages.

C – it’s now what the client considers fair

D- if the case is unsuccessful it’s 0.

E- we don’t know anything about the intentions of the judge/jury

26Detail

A: this is not mentioned in the recommendation. The author talks about contingency fees in general and how they increase diligence but this is not from the recommendation

B: this is a logical relationship but it is not the correct one

C: this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition; if the lawyer isn’t sure if the client can pay the fee if the case is unsuccessful, then they would use contingency fees.

D: this is it. It is a last resort, so if other options are available you don’t use the contingency fee

E: this is wrong because fees are NOT linked to the damages (the percentage anyway) and also the lawyer has to be okay with them not winning.

27 Weaken

Got it wrong both times with A

A: I picked this because it says that the least well-off litigants were able to file more in places where contingency fee agreements are in place. I thought this was a criticism that the author said, and the author did make this criticism but specifically about the specific contingency fee plan mentioned – not contingency fees themselves. That is why this answer is wrong because this actually is consistent with how the author talks about contingency fees in general and how they can be a positive. The key goes back to JY’s analysis in the other video that the criticism is about the restrictions NOT contingency fees themselves. I got this wrong because I did not understand this distinction, and I think that is why A is so popular.

B – this actually weakens because this shows that something that is assumed to be onerous but it’s actually already implemented.

C- it doesn’t matter if it’s highly likely to be implemented or not.

D-a comparison that is not relevant. Lawyers under uplift earn slightly higher in fees than those without contingency fees.

E-no one cares which type is used more.

Criticism #2 - https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/2880269?gclid=CjwKCAjw5c6LBhBdEiwAP9ejG1-AhVs8Bxf1k9ykeRuSbc5wngQ_gMNPbIb32rDWoL9fmdBwlNoWJhoCho8QAvD_BwE

thank you tulip museum in amsterdam!

this question is covered in the strengthening/weakening webinar. There's a good explanation of it too there!

sampling bias/unrepresentative sample

I see why answer E on question 5 is attractive during review. I took that to mean that the metaphor was used to discuss the everyday images, which I would argue is an element common to all corridos, however, this is not what the answer says. It says that the metaphor is an element common to all variants of corridos - which is plainly contradicted.

All I could think about when I read the medicine name was #antifa

Premise: Human emotional tendencies are essentially unchanged

-technology enables a wider range of choices

Conclusion: humans are generally unable to choose more wisely.

GAP: This is going from emotional tendencies being unchanged to being unable to choose more wisely.

Having a wider range of choices does not make you choose more wisely.

This is assuming something like choosing more wisely depends on emotional tendencies being changed?

A: This does not have to be true. What if they have undergone significant changes in their height? They could still be unable to choose more wisely.

B: What does being in control of their emotions have anything to do with anything? This doesn’t make it so that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely.

C: This is so out of left field. This says If humans are not emotionally disposed to heed lessons of history, history can’t make them wiser. So what if they are not able to heed lessons of history BUT history can make them wiser. Does this mean it is not possible for it to be true that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely? no.

D: Do humans choosing on the basis of their emotions alone make it so that humans are generally unable to choose more wisely? What if humans choose based on the day of the week? or the color of their clothes? The could still be generally unable to choose more wisely.

E: This is a simple argument. There is only one premise. Emotional tendencies are unchanged. Therefore, we are unable to choose more wisely. What does emotional tendencies have to do with choosing wisely? The author is assuming that they are linked. So that means being able to choose more wisely depends on emotional tendencies having changed. This answer choice negated says that: Humans can make wiser choices and an emotional change had not taken place. If this is the case, why is it that a change hasn’t taken place, and humans can’t make wiser choices? the argument falls apart.

The way I did this last question (huge time sink) was looking at the last answer choice and going through all the options. If it's a published unrequested manuscript, you know it can't be anything in the first half of the stimulus (it's not submitted by literary agents/not requested directly from fiction writers) and you know that it's unrequested so it can't be requested after a careful review of the writer's proposal, leaving the only option: it must be from a renowned figure.

I read this passage two days before taking a flight. Didn't make me feel great lol!

I have been out of undergrad for 10 years, and have more or less kept in touch with the two professors I've asked (they have written my recommendation letters for other things throughout the years, but even the most recent of those was 4/5 years ago). I admittedly had close relationships with my professors, but I still wanted to give them as much time as possible to write the letter. I would ask ASAP. I sent this late summer/early summer. Obviously this would be different now if I were writing it since I have finished my personal statement, but you get the idea. Hopefully this helps - the sooner you ask, the better! That way if a professor says no, you have time to figure out a back up plan.

Subject: Recommendation Letter for Law School

Hi [name], (admittedly you could say professor xyz)

I hope you’re doing well and enjoying summer. As you can tell from the subject, I’m in the process of applying to law school this fall and I was hoping that you would be available to write me a letter of recommendation. I will probably not submit my applications until mid to late October, so I figured I would I ask now to give you enough time.

If you have the time and are willing to write me a recommendation letter, I can send you a copy of my résumé along with some points I was hoping you could address in the recommendation letter. I’m not done writing my personal statement, but I can also explain why I am applying to law school or share any other information that you feel would be helpful, either over email or the phone if that is easier.

Thank you so much,

[name]

I guess it depends if the creative language style detracts from the message you are trying to get across with the diversity/personal statement. If so, then probably. If the message is clear then I'm not sure it's an issue.

Hi! If you want to message me, I could review it this weekend. I already finished my personal statement so don't need to swap but more than happy to provide feedback.

@ if you do any other sessions I can always help with Zoom! I have an account through my job. DM me if you want.

How long will this go for?

So exciting to be a FIRST COMMENT!