First week post-October LSAT, I experienced a bout of depression after not hearing JY's voice.

I agree about watching the videos; re-watching them the day before the test helped with confidence and put me in a good state of mind.

J.Y.,

If we broadened the scope of Q 25 and rewrote it as the following.

"It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes that notions like "voluntary" and "involuntary."

And we modified answer choice D to state:

"Are often mistakenly believed to be criteria that inform people's opinions as to whether government intervention is justified in certain risk-related activities."

Could this be inferred from the passage?

Although the author states that "the distinction between voluntary and involuntary risk [is the chief difference between lay and expert judgments about risk.]" could one not claim that the author makes a stronger argument that, in reality the actual variables the public uses are "the more specific considerations for which notions of voluntariness serve as proxies."?

I was just curious because in the video you alluded to the idea that the first part of answer choice D was wrong because the author stated that notions such as voluntary / involuntary guide the public's decision-making (concerning risk and gov. intervention). However, in lines 14-19, the author claims that the public's understanding of these variables are often muddled by "confusion and misinformation", and that frequently the actual deciding variable is "an antecedent judgment of some other kind." Therefore, often times these notions are incorrectly believed to guide the public's decision-making [related to risk].

I think the correct answer to this question can be better stood if we diagramed the stim. using conditional logic.

Soph. -> Δ Asp. Style -> Independent function -> Internal coherence.

~ Internal coherence -> ~ Independent function -> ~Δ Asp. Style -> ~Soph.

In essence, "unintelligible" = lacking internal coherence.

A.C. D: "Music that is unintelligible when presented independently of original function is sophisticated" contradicts the conditional chain above.