I thought C went too far, that it was not strictly necessary because helping with learning a languages does not mean that one has succeeded in having fully learned a language. If mastering the grammatical structure merely implied that one had more fully understood the language, it would seem strictly necessary, but idk I guess language is an ongoing process and the whole concept of having learned a language is a bit murky to begin with.

Ok here's why I didn't think C was right. The stimulus doesn't say we shouldn't be surprised that the clergy exagerrate all people's religious devotion. Perhaps the clergy had a motivation for specifically emphasizing the peasants devotion. Perhaps they had a worldview that the humility of the poor made them specially chosen by God, and therefore had a reason to consciously or subconsciously to depict poor people as more religious. With this possibility in mind, C seems to be on bar with A in terms of being the best answer choice.

I see where you're coming from. I think we have to make some reasonable assumptions here though. We know that all of the record keepers in the middle ages were clergy. Now it's fairly common knowledge that there were written records in the middle ages about the kings and nobility. Since we know there are records, and the stimulus says these are the only people who were record keepers, it follows that they wrote about the nobility as well.

Does that arrow intentionally look like the thing that it looks like???

lol yeah. I'm just glad we have them cuz RC is my worst section.

The word surely threw me off. I tried looking for an answer that was tentative in its claims. None of them really were, but D seemed slightly tentative so I chose it. Maybe I should have ignored that aspect of the stimulus once I realized it didn't clearly distinguish between the answers.

Actually, if you read more closely, the stimulus talks about 1000 peanuts being drawn from Lot B and Lot A, and then draws a conclusion about the entirety of Lot B and Lot A. I could see where the confusion lies since this initially tripped me up to, but in fact, the stimulus is also making a generalization about the population.

It's important to remember that the order of statements in a paragraph does not affect the logic of the paragraph. It's about the method of reasoning being similar, not the similarity of grammatical structure.

Same, for me I think it's because I'm currently a uni student who has difficult finding parking spots during the school year, and I had a mom who gave out a lot more snacks to us when we had friends over lol.

The problem is that we don't even know if the original team are actually professionals.

yeah, I'm pretty sure they do stuff like this on purpose to see what extent people are able to compartmentalize their emotions and not get distracted by them, so that they can focus on the cold hard facts of the stimulus.

Anyone else read this and immediately identify the context of the argument? lmao

Because the argument makes the claim against reducing class size because there are not enough qualified teachings in the region. It fails to consider the very reasonable possibility that the district could hire qualified teachers from outside of the region. Since E allows us to exclude this very real possibility, it is the correct answer.

Basically, the reason I decided A was wrong was because I thought "well, maybe the activist is an elitist who thinks the voting population should never have to vote on anything." Maybe they are just opposed to voting rights.

Thanks for this explanation. I misunderstood C, and I didn't love A but I choose it cuz it seemed to be the best answer. This helped me to see why A simply could not be right.

They format the explanations for these comparison passages kind of strangely. They go through passage A and answer questions based on it when you click passage, and then when you click question, it takes you to passage b and the relevant questions.

I should add to this that my reasoning for D seems consistent with the passages main idea that scientific progress is often erratic.

While I understand why B is a good answer, it seems plausible that D could also be correct. If you have more people concentrating on obtaining those results, wouldn't that make it statistically more probably that someone would have chanced upon Otto Hahn's discovery of barium even sooner, thereby prompting theoretical physicists to make the connection to their own theories?

#feedback the explanation for question 12 is wrong! He misreads the question. It asks what is the underlying argument in both passages, but he only deals with it in respect to passage B.

I think the issue with your reasoning here is that you've assumed that the marketing of the other products weren't related to the products' success. Those other products may have only succeeded because of marketing. If that is the case, that would actually strengthen the conclusion that the new product needs more marketing.

I chose C and had to think for a while about why it wasn't at least a plausible answer. What I ended up realizing is that the error was due to an unwarranted assumption I was making. I came into the argument with my own assumption that stretching does reduce injuries, and because I had that assumption, I was thinking that the researchers also shared my assumption, and that my assumption needed to be disproven. However, nowhere does the stimulus say something like "Previous research has shown that stretching before jogging can reduce the chances of injury."

It is true that in real life, stretching does prevent injuries, but LSAT questions are not necessarily based on the actual world. If you look at the question without this assumption, C seems to be a neutral choice. For it to help weaken, it relies on the assumption that jogging has some affect on preventing injury, but the answer choice admits the possibility that jogging has no effect on preventing injury.

I disagree with the video that C could strengthen the argument, but I do now understand why it doesn't weaken the argument. Hope this helps!

I was struggling with this too, but I think the idea is that given what we know, the situation in which the cost of living decreases but the traffic congestion doesn't decrease as well is a logical impossibility. It simply can't happen.

In other words, we know that if there is a profit increase, then the traffic congestion must have decrease, so if the cost of living decreases, then the traffic congestion must also decrease. There may not be a causal relationship between the two, and we don't need to identify it, so long as we realize that they are logically related. Hope that helps :)

I'm curious-if B was not an option in this question, would it be reasonable to choose E as the correct answer? My thought process is that while E requires us to make an unwarranted assumption, if the assumption were true, it would be aided by the information in the stimulus in a way that A, C and D aren't. It seems to be a better choice, even if it is not as good as B.

Obviously, this reasoning wouldn't cause me issues on this specific question since I still would have chosen B, but I'm just curious if this reasoning will help me or get me into trouble on other questions on the LSAT.