I would also like to thank the 7Sage Team and especially JY! I became a member way back when JY would answer your questions on the pop-up chat window lol. Finally took my first LSAT in September and got a172!! It's a score beyond my imagination. Thank you so much! Congrats to you! I'm also super excited lol.

For Q25, what's wrong with (E)? The language such as "entirely different events" does seem to be a bit too strong. But isn't it true that those historians（who employed a nationalist approach）focused on the "glorification of the nation" whereas those early African American historians focused on reconstructing a African past? Thanks!

I do not understand this question at all. Please help!

J.Y. says to "Look at the conclusion in isolation. How would you try to prove it? Large cars are safer than smaller cars." But the conclusion did not say large cars are safer than small cars. It merely says that IN an automobile accident, drive a large car is less likely to get you injured than driving a small car. Why would D matter? Who cares about under what situation is an accident more likely to happen? We are talking about when accidents already happened, you are less likely to be injured in a large car than in a small car. It's like asking a police to choose whether to drive a large car or a small car, given the condition that he/she needs to crash into a criminal's vehicle. Crashing is a given, not a choice. The only safety concern in this question is which choice is more likely to get you injured rather than more likely to get you into an accident.

I didn't pick C because it says "we can NEVER be completely sure ..." rather than simply saying "we can NOT be completely sure ..." How do we get the support for "never?" How do we know because we cannot verify computer-dependent proofs NOW we cannot do it in the future? Thanks!

I have similar problem with this question. I don't think it's fair to assume that wolves not tolerate an attack to a submitted wolf necessarily shows that wolves are capable of obeying moral rules; it may well be from their nature to not attack a surrendered fellow rather than from the abeyance of a moral principle. If this is true, maybe C is correct in that capable of obeying moral rules isn't necessary for having rights; animal nature would also do. Any thoughts? Thank you!

I was thinking maybe the 1st sentence is the premise for the 2nd sentence as well: "dictation software allows a computer to produce a written version of sentences that are spoken to it" supports "...dictation software has been promoted as a labor-saving invention." So A is correct. What is wrong with my thinking? Thanks!

I'm still not sure how the argument depends on assuming a net increase in employment.

"Say that every person that is in one of these accidents, upon recovering, enters the workforce and is so efficient that s/he puts two people out of work. However, that efficiency demands a higher wage, so high in fact that s/he ends up making more than the other two people combined, and so, imagine, ends up paying more in taxes than the two now unemployed people.

So here we have a situation in which the argument is satisfied (we have an increase in GNP dependent on timely access to blah blah blah) without assuming D. What am I missing?"

Also, I think answer choice D is telling us that we need to assume these newly recovered people would be able to find a job. But why do they have to find a newly created job instead of replacing other people's jobs because they are more efficient?

Thanks and sorry for any confusion.

Is it appropriate for me to think that typically = usually = most and often = many = some? Or does "usually" and "often" simply means can be but doesn't have to be? Thanks!