Premise: people generally fail to buy the products advertised during their favorite shows → shows will soon be cancelled

Conclusion: anyone who feels that a show is worth preserving → buy the products advertised during that show

(A) the premise descriptor does not match; here we are given 'ONE took certain actions' vs the premise gives us people generally

(C) again, premise does not match

(D) premise does not match

(E) premise description is okay, but the conclusion does not; 'those who feel the most strongly'? nope. according to the stimulus, it's those that feel that a show is worth preserving

(B) is correct because the premise/conclusion matches really well

answer choice premise: /many people took certain actions → show will be cancelled

stimulus premise: people generally fail to buy the products advertised during their favorite shows → shows will soon be cancelled

answer choice conclusion: everyone feel worth preserving → take those actions ('those actions' is a referential, referring to buying products advertised during favorite TV show)

stimulus conclusion: anyone who feels that a show is worth preserving → buy the products advertised during that show

I managed to get this right, but during the timed PT, although I knew this was an analogy, I had close to zero understanding of what the analogy was really about. I think the confusion was partly because the first part talks about something being free of obstructions, and then the second thing mentions obscuring a portion of the ray, so it at first sounded to be odd or even contradictory.

Another way of eliminating (B) when you didn't fully understand the BS nature of "many would agree that" is to realize that the supposed condition is oppose higher taxes → better leader than those who support higher taxes. It doesn't mention anything about good leadership in the absolute sense, but rather comparatively. What if those who support higher taxes are the absolute worst, and so according to the conditional, those who oppose are merely better than the absolute worst ones, and hence those who support higher taxes are bad leaders (albeit better than the absolute worst ones)?

(A), (B), (C), and (E) all give examples of how the pool of money increased, so despite the lower percentage on personal income for most taxpayers, the possibility remains that the total amount of money collected from personal income taxes rose in 75-76.

Thankfully, I had a prephase in my mind after reading the stimulus, and as soon as I read (A) I circled it and didn't bother to read the other choices. I know I might have considered (B) had I read it during timed PT though.

Another potential misunderstanding I see with (A) is that if you can show that Charles benefited himself (benefit the giver → selfish), you can conclude selfish. You might be thinking "Oh, Charles wanted to buy a present for his cousin anyway, but these free opera tickets showed up, so Charles didn't have to go through the whole hassle of trying to figure out what his cousin likes, how much the budget should be, if he should include a letter, etc.." You might then make the wrong assumption that this is benefitting Charles. But as you can see, I added a lot to the story to make the assumption a right one.

Does anyone else feel that PT39 in general is a bit wonky?

(A) is such a good trap. But the stimulus only refers to mundane ideas. What about for complex ideas? Should those ideas also be written in a simple style? We don't know. (A) is too generic, although very appealing.

Definitely a hard #1. During timed PT, I skipped this and was able to come back to it, and even during then, time pressure + feeling like s knowing that this is only #1 AND a main point question threw me off. I was lucky to choose the correct AC by intuition, but I definitely did not understand why (C) is correct.

Now that I come back to this, I see that the premise is a conditional:

/judges well-equipped to answer → something badly wrong with the legal system

/something badly wrong with the legal system

--------------------------------------------------------------------

judges well-equipped to answer question about the reasonableness of a government minister making some administrative decision

(A): part of the premise

(B): why the prescriptive language?

(D): I don't know the necessary conditions of something badly wrong with the legal system, just that something badly wrong with the legal system is a necessary condition.

(E): negate sufficient, renders rule irrelevant and just nope

For #24, I used lines 25-26 to answer (E), that details that we give adequate attention to is likely to be clearly or stably stored in memory. Is this wrong?

#help

LOL J.Y. is so cute. You even took a class!

can, can, must?!

I had a different way of eliminating (A). The stimulus mentions averages, meaning that there are some of those higher and lower than the average level of confidence. So it could be that the beliefs of the psychologists, that the traditional childbearing practice, does damage some people's self-esteem and confidence. Even one example of such instance would be okay to say that their beliefs are not incorrect.

I think it really depends. I was working in a foreign country, and the workplace was a competitive environment. I went to Starbucks every morning before work for around 1.5 hours, 30 minutes during lunch time, and 1-2 hours after work. I studied 8-9 hours on weekends. Although it definitely affected my studies to an extent, I feel like I was more desperate and self-motivated to study during this time. After I quit, I began to study full-time for around 9 months. Of course I had more time to spend, but on the flip side, it put more pressure on me because of my own expectations/other's expectations. People (me including) thought that I should be doing better because I was studying full-time. So I suffered a mental downtime, and although I managed to pull myself through (no more LSAT for me!), I don't know if I could do it all over again. My advice to you would be to think through the pros and cons. Just because you have more time to study, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll do better (mentally, at least).

22 booooooo. The first paragraph tells us that archaeological evidence is at best circumstantial. So when I looked through the answer choices, I eliminated everything with circumstantial, because I thought that was referring to archaeological, not ethnographical evidences. But the 2 subtle differences between paragraph 2 and (B) J.Y. points out makes clear sense. But still. Booooooo.

This passage realllllllyyyyyy shows content understanding, although desirable, is not always necessary for success. Had absolutely no idea what the frick I was reading and hence decided to really focus on structure, and managed to only miss the last question.

I sort of had an idea what insular meant, like inward looking, only caring about oneself in a selfish way. With that definition, I couldn't eliminate it on Round 1, because to me, the rivalry part of the passage does in a way show selfishness, trying to be better than others.

I was actually stuck between (A) and (E) for 27, mostly because I didn't clearly grasp what (E) meant. My understanding of what (E) is saying is that the rights of a potential employee are more important than monetary considerations in contract disputes. Meaning, that if Sam, who signed the employment contract and was supposed to come but ended up going to a rival firm, his rights override the monetary compensation that he is supposed to pay to the original firm. This is a potential weakening answer. If Sam's rights are more important, why does Sam need to even pay?

UGH

This reminds me of another question from an older PT (unfortunately I don't recall which PT specifically). It went something like product X was considered harmful, and Y was not. Therefore, X was banned and Y was not. However, it was later found that X is not harmful. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, Y should be banned. Something along those lines. Actually, Y could be banned, but there is another plausible solution, to un-ban X altogether, so that both X and Y would not be banned.

I was actually stuck between (A) and (C), and erroneously chose (C) during timed PT. I think what was going on in my head is that okay, we are told that birds prey on spiders and some birds use spiderwebs for their own good. And here (C) comes in, confirming that yes, because the birds died off, now the number of spiderwebs are increasing, and even more prevalent on Guam than on the nearby islands. This is very very bad, because I assumed several things along the way. (C) doesn't tell us why the spiderwebs are more prevalent. Is it because really the birds were the ones messing up with the spiderwebs and now that they are gone, the spiderwebs have returned? And plus, (C) says spiderwebs are more prevalent relatively. This doesn't mean that they increased after the birds died off. It's just simply more abundant in Guam. And also, it's common sensical to assume that because Guam has 40 times more spiders than nearby islands, that Guam has more spiderwebs. Very frustrating _ And (A) comes in, eloquently giving another reason why birds were bad for spiders. It requires no fluff/assumptions.

I was down to (D) and (E) during timed PT, and I didn't like how (E) mentioned how frequently blood donors are giving blood already. I overthought this one, and assumed frequency has no relevance to the amount. But it's common sensical in this instance to think that frequency relates to the amount they are giving.

I think the initial confusion surrounding (C) is that the subject matter is about mature harbor seals. At a cursory glance, it seems irrelevant because the marine biologists hypothesise that young harbor seals start as a default with an aversion to all killer whales, so maybe you're thinking that by the time a young harbor seal has matured, it should have already experienced enough of life to know which killer whale to avoid/hang out with. But the assumption is that all young harbor seals live in places that have the two types of killer whales. It could well be that in one area, only the fish-eating killer whales are around.

After that hurdle, I think the next important thing is to notice the key word in (C): first. So for this particular mature harbor seal in question, this is the first time it is hearing chatter of killer whales that eat only fish. Albeit it being safe, because it's the first time to hear this chatter, the default should kick in, and the harbor seal should run away. Maybe as it gradually learns that these are nice killer whales, they'll learn to ignore them. As J.Y. mentions, (C) is very well in-line with the hypothesis.

(E) seems to be suggesting a different way that the harbor seals learn to differentiate the nice vs. bad killer whales: by personal experience. The seal learned to avoid all killer whales that chatter in the attacker's dialect because from personal experience, it got attacked. This seems to suggest that the default for seals is to chillax, but once it learns from personal experience, it learns to run away. This is also supported by the fact that 'other harbor seals will not [avoid all killer whales that chatter in the attacker's dialect]', because the other seals are just by default chill. Since they did not experience anything personal, they're good. And if anything, if we assume the hypothesis to be true for this answer choice, we should kind of expect the seal, after being attacked by a 'friend', to still generally be chill around other 'friendly' whales, because in 99.9% of the cases, it learned that those whales are okay.

The first two minutes of this lesson is the most important!!!!!!!

I think what (D) in #7 is referring to is the fact that the two ways in which fish farming can be a possible solution in the decline of ocean fishery stocks (reducing fishing efforts and serving as alternatives) are the "advances made by fish farming", but that benefits may be lost because of niche markets and so "high catch rates for several types of wild fish caught overshadow" those "benefits" or "advances". It's still wrong because of the focus, and the last sentence mentions that the benefits may be lost, whereas (D) is certain that it is overshadowed, or lost.