I initially got tripped up by this question because, like most questions that trip me up, I read too much into it.

B was ambiguous to me because:

1) how am I supposed to know that "Certain Medical Therapies" does not include Weight bearing exercise? As someone who has done a lot of Physical Therapy before (which is a medical therapy) weight bearing exercise can definitely be included thus supporting the argument.

2) Medical therapies that do not involve special diets does not inherently mean that one can not also be doing a special diet... Just like how it says both exercise and dieting are essential we wouldn't assume that these things are two things that go together... Would it be a wrong answer choice if it said "Certain weight-bering exercises that do not involve special diets can be effective means of preventing osteoporosis?"

The only reason why I got this correct is because A feels like it barely strengthens by barely eliminating a weakener, that being that "weightless exercise can also work" so weight bearing exercise is not essential?

I do not understand the reasoning for why C is wrong for Question 19. The passage states "that of gender offers an analytical framework within which to analyze social and political structures" and that one of the forms of the new work (aka the shift to more gender) "shaped culture and politics".

In my opinion a better way of saying why C is wrong is that C states that passage B illustrates a "current trend" when B does no such thing. The only reference of this is the last few words of B "making the present look like the idealized past" but this I feel refers more to the goals back in the Augustan-period, not a trend today.

So for C, a correct answer choice for NA will NEVER be correct if it uses information from the past to try and rationalize something for the present?

AC C was what I was predicting the answer to be because I assumed that it would be necessary that "the dead bodies of the creatures will not wreak ecological havoc" and C says "if they have not been able to survive in that habitat, then they have rarely if ever wreaked ecological havoc.

Negating this is that in the past, having dead bodies of sea animals actually HAS caused ecological disasters.

Initially got tripped up because I thought that "If they do no not" meant "If opposition responds negatively" and that a SA would be that "If they show a desire then opposition will respond" so then we could trigger the outcomes of responding either positively or negatively.

HOWEVER I forgot that "Not responding positively" means doing anything other than responding positively, that also meaning not responding at all.

I got this correct but initially I was super confused because of the "Should" statement in the conclusion. I was under the assumption that if a conclusion includes "should" and the premises do not, then a correct answer to a PSA and SA question must have a value statement. I guess this isn't always the case though?

So C means that the reason we have more reports is because all of the reports have been because of small tornados. I still do NOT see how this supports the claim the number of tornadoes have not actually increased. In my opinion it does nothing to the argument.

I got this correct but I was very wary because I did not know if "compensatory" meant what I was trying to show. when they said they raised the prices and then gave a $0.25 discount, in no way does that mean they raised the price to the point where it was at least $0.50 extra so they still receive $0.25 unless "a compensatory amount" means they actually did raise it to at least 50 cents more

I took E to mean "If you are a Physical Phenomenon then you CAN be explained by P C or N" not that you "must be explained". My interpretation leaves it open for other things to explain a physical phenomenon. I guess my question is how can you tell the "can be explained by" meant "must be explained by" 

And how am I supposed to get this question correct if I have no idea what impunity means? After giving up on picking an answer I looked up the definition and immediately got it correct

If the negation of more likely is "not more likely" doesn't that mean either equal or less likely? So isnt the negation of "not more likely" either just as likely or less?

Also for a weaken question would a correct answer to "In a survey 60% of participants said yes and 40% said no. This shows more people believe yes than no" be an answer that then applies a specific trait to the survey size? Like if an answer choice said "The survey was conducted of only minors" then we would have reason to believe it is not representative of the broader population because it introduces that nuance needed for it to be flawed?

I do not understand why B is correct, I only see it as getting us one step closer to the conclusion but not guaranteeing it. Let us assume that protecting forests is the only reason why one should attempt to prevent fires. (What B says). It then jumps to the idea that Humans should not intervene. In my opinion, this requires the assumption that protecting the environment is not the goal of humans attempting to prevent forest fires, which was what I was looking for in my answer, which is why when I was deciding between A and B, I went with A.

However I do not see why A is incorrect and bridges the gap in my mind. If we take the premise of "forest fires promote diversity" and the conclusion of "humans should not interfere". Then "Human intevrention in natural processes reduced the diversity" directly bridges the gap.

I picked D but the reasoning it is wrong sounds just as flawed as the reasoning C is right. 

D reasoning : Just because most earthquakes take place in areas with high subduction, high subduction does not mean they have a lot of earth quakes (A conditional flaw)

Cs reasoning refers to a line that states the shallow angle "allows for a much larger plane of contact". I do not understand how "much larger" leads to "most" that feels like a scope flaw especially since this is labeled as a Stated question and since it never explicitly says elsewhere that the higher the plane of contact, the more earth quakes there are.

Maybe if this was a "If you had to make an assumption, which one would have the most" this would make sense"

I am so confused because the explanation for A says it is correct because it says the retributive rationale does not take into account consequences (social benefit), however the Main Point says that the retributive rationale is actually are grounded in social-benefit!

This was something that messed with me a lot during this. So many times in the answers it talked about The Retributive without acknowledging that the main point is that the Retributive is actually grounded in social benefit

This confused me more than it should have... I'm very aware that passage states this but I feel like later on the passage goes on to state that the second rationale is is actually grounded in social benefit.

If the answer said "some people believe it does not employ the notion of social benefit" I feel like it would 100% be correct but I feel like the author's main point was to show that the second actually does to an extent employ the notion of social benefit.

OH and is there anymore hacks like this for other question types?? I remember there being one for parallels? maybe MBT? or like PSA or something where it was something along the lines of if the conclusion in the AC doesnt lead to the same conclusion in the stimulus it is immediately wrong.

Ex: Stim: If A then B

Answer choice must lead to either B or the negation of A

I did not pick E because I thought it could be saying they were not influenced by Caribbean cultures, not that there are also ones other than Caribbean cultures.

Idk the way I read this was that Paragraph 1 of Passage B was in relation to the the principle of justice in transfer violations, and paragraph two was like the historical basis of this decision, that being the principle of rectification. That made me think "well then how would this be prevention if it already occurred, this seems like the outcome of the principle of rectification" so that lead me to pick E as implementation of rectification.

What I did to get it correct:

1) I treated the Causal Statements in the beginning as if they were Conditional Statements. This led me to seeing that each thing was mentioned both in the conclusion and premises other than "Green-manure" which was just in the premise.

2) Crossed out every answer with no mention of "green manure or alfalfa" (C and D) then crossed off B because it didn't link anything.

3) Turned A and E into conditionals and negated both which showed E to destroy the argument

I ultimately picked D over C when comparing because. If people who already were highly motivated did not report a difference, there is still participants who reported an increase showing that it is very probable that it at least motivated one person which just matches the conclusion that it can motivate.

This however does not change the fact that D is a terrible terrible Weakener whoever wrote this hates people.

At the end of the day I was stuck between A and B and chose A. The reason I did this was solely because the conclusion is about dark roasts compared to lighter roasts, and only A mentions both.

But B is very tempting and I still do not completely understand why it is wrong.

I guess this is one of the perks for noticing LSAT patterns in correct answer to pick between two!

The reasoning in A makes no sense and contradicts the reasoning in C.

Just because it CAN effectively be controlled by hand washing does not mean that hand washing was the case. This requires the assumption that it what connected to the public health campaign and not because of something else such people making sure their food is cooked properly or even that a separate campaign was in place for food-borne illnesses that inspired hand washing. This is the exact reasoning why C is explained to be wrong.

C makes more sense to me because it actually shows evidence that there was less public gatherings compared to the assumption there was more hand washing. The reasoning it is wrong is literally that "Yeah this could work but it requires an assumption that it wasn't caused by something else, we cannot jump to either of those conclusion"

This threw me for a loop because I thought both A and C could be wrong for these reasons but the others were way more wrong and I had to pick one.

Im confused by this one because if we treat this like a NA question then negating must completely destroy the argument, however I feel like negating E weakens the argument, not destroys, which is a big thing I go off of when choosing answers for NA.

Just because it was abnormally high the year before does not destroy the argument that speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. I understand the assumption that maybe it just went back to normal after a weird year but that "maybe" does not destroy.

So do I have my approach to NA in general wrong or am I wrong to assume that just because we use the idea of NA for this flaw question, it needs to destroy not just weaken

I though D was a trap answer because the statement says that it is LYING INFORMANTS who are rarely prosecuted. I guess I didnt see that informants are part of Cooperating Witnesses and mixed up cooperating witnesses with accomplice witnesses

I think I got it wrong because I was bouncing back and forth whether or not "Loss of image size and definition" was a factor of reediting and I ended up deciding that it was for some reason.