Man, I feel like the difficulty of this question came from how hard it was to understand what the lawyer was saying. I found myself getting turned around on whether I was to look for answers that did not support how Congleton would get the project to fail or answer that did not support why the lawyer thought the witness was lying.

After Kevin's explanation, I realized both of those ideas were completely off target. Any suggestions on how to approach questions like this in the future?

What I find to be interesting is the fact that I understood why AC C was correct and i got it right in BR but I couldn't understand why AC B was wrong. All it took was Kevin reading it out loud and it immediately clicked before he even finished or started explaining.

The LSAT is so sneaky man. You really have to read and understand EVERY word and be critical of it.

B is worded in such a ridiculous way that even though my assumption on what the AC was going to be was correct, I got this answer wrong because it makes no sense.

If it fails to consider other possibilities that don't involve gravity, why is "gravitational force" even in the AC? This was very aggravating.

It's funny because I eliminated D for being irrelevant but selected C even though it was wrong for the same reason.

@MateoAgudelo After a lot of reading, I basically realized that this strengthens the author's reasoning because it proves predisposition to Parkinson's doesn't cause people to eat more iron. If it did, then their reasoning would fall apart.

What I'm realizing is that some strengthening questions (the correlation causation ones in particular) really just want an answer that eliminates another possibility. Even if it barely makes sense to us lol.

So the part about becoming extinct was just to throw us off? I was looking for what idea was missing and that sentence had me believe extinct was the missing link.

I didn't even understand what the last sentence was saying so I didn't realize "many forms are figurative, such as bowls..." meant the tokens began looking like the items they represented lol. This passage was tough but it makes sense when you understand that

This language in the question stem was super hard to parse through for me. So I just used POE and eliminated which choices weren't mentioned by both. "decline in quality of art" and "people mistakenly think contemp art is inferior to earlier art" was the give away.

Great video explanation Kevin!

How is D not an whole to part flow?

@kennedyBooker usually someone share's their screen and we take about two minutes to work on the question on our own then we take turns sharing our thought process on why we believe an answer is correct and why we eliminated other answer. if you're new to studying but it may be more beneficial if you were to wait until you got to the LR section so some of the terms are more familiar to you.

the way my mouth dropped when the other paragraph appeared

I had this same concern too. But now I only check why it was marked AFTER I've attempted to answer the question again and I don't allow myself to change my answer once I've viewed the reason. Same thing you're essentially asking for but you have to hold yourself accountable

@Kaileavesley I think its kind of like a parallel reasoning/analogy question in LR when they ask us to apply the logic of the stimulus to one of the answer choices.

Natives did not practice sea otter hunting because they were prevent from doing so. The court decided this practice should be considered traditional because it was something they practiced regularly but could not do it in recent years due to actions out of their control.

AC C is corrected because it includes the element of the practice being stopped due to actions out of their control. The other ACs are missing this key element which makes D the most correct.

I almost got this wrong. I selected B and was about to change my answer until I re-read that it said 1986 court case. Then it confirmed for me that B was correct.

Make sure you take your time and thoroughly read through the question and don't be afraid to take a few extra seconds to re-read a sentence or two in the passage. It could make the difference between a right answer slightly over time or a wrong answer under time.

@Oasis323 I think this AC plays directly into our incorrect interpretation of the court's opinion. They heard many uses of sea otters before 1700s and reconsidered what constituted a traditional item. This doesn't say the Natives specifically said they interpreted tradition in a different way. If anything, they argued that this specific action deserved to be categorized as traditional.

The passage doesn't insinuate that Alaska Natives disagreed about the way tradition was interpreted, the court themselves did that. They could've agreed with the FWS's interpretation but were simply asking for a specific activity (sea otter hunting) to be included based on their native history. After hearing this, the court themselves redefined and expanded the definition of traditional.

if it wasn't for Kevin's analysis, I would have never picked up on the real main point

@LindseyKnutt passages can fall into two categories. they all will fall into at least one of the two styles in perspective based (critique/debate or single position) and some will also fall into the engagement based style (spotlight, problem-analysis, phenom-hypo)

I can def see how stated questions prey on our implicit biases

For me, AC A looked attractive at first but when I skimmed the passage I didn't remember anything about actual trials so once I got to AC C I knew it was right.

On blind review I reviewed the passage and confirmed that A wasn't right because the passage specifically said "no actual trials".

Right now, writing out the low res summaries really helps me to stay anchored to the passage.

@Evanspecker I'm happy to see others made the same mistake I did. Literally face palmed when I did BR

the road trip analogy was great

i think this question is a great example of the importance of understanding the patterns on this test. i had no clue what the stimulus was talking about and wasted a lot of time trying to comprehend it. But I selected A because it says the opposite of one of the claims the author made. this cant be a necessary assumption if it contradicts a statement in the stimulus.

once i noticed that, i selected A (even though I was sure I was going to get it wrong).

this one felt a lot more complicated at first glance than the rating it has lol

@saulgoodman13 I feel like this one tries to play on our biases I saw it as in order for C to be right, we had to assume that one might prefer to eat sooner rather than wait for a pizza. We would have to decide what is considered the cost vs the benefits and once you do that, your implicit bias would have already taken over.

What if I care more about the ease of eating rather than the length of time? What if I cared more about eating as soon as possible? AC C brings about all these questions because it's not a real cost benefit analysis.