Is there a downside if the score is lower?

@janinewolfj9677 @kylefeuer279 I'm pretty sure June counts for next cycle's limit so you could take it as long as you're not violating the lifetime rule. Look under "How many times may I take the LSAT?" here: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat/lsat-faqs

It's not a MBT Q. For MSS, 4 ACs will just be completely unsupported, which is the case here with ABCE. D is independently right because the stimulus sets up this line of how much money would be reasonable to spend through the example of a hypothetical manufacturing plant. Anything below that line (which would cost less) can then be seen as reasonable based only on the criterion the stimulus has given us (the cost)! You can't object to D by bringing up quality of jobs, wages, or some other unmentioned criterion (and saying that the tourism plant is worse in all these aspects) because you could just as easily read such factors into D in a positive way (i.e. quality of jobs are higher in tourism plan than manufacturing plant). Regardless, nothing in the stimulus tells us about any other consideration outside of the facts that tourism and manufacturing would create equal number of jobs (maybe tourism even more?), tourism would cost less than manufacturing, and manufacturing cost would be reasonable. The stimulus tells us the idea of either one being a reasonable course of action is based on the cost. Since manufacturing cost is higher than tourism and deemed reasonable, there's some support that tourism would be deemed reasonable as well.

PT 89 psg 4 is comparative

Could someone post the email they got? I didn't get one...

I'm interested in getting enrolled! Thank you to the person who donated and to 7Sage in its entirety. I've had nothing but positive experiences :smile:

The ACs aren't things that Taylor has said. The Q is asking you to find an AC that one would disagree with and the other would agree with (regardless of whether or not it's Sandra that disagrees with the statement). It could be that Taylor disagrees with the statement while Sandra agrees with it and it'd still be the right AC because Sandra would still be disagreeing with Taylor.

Taylor's argument is that ALL mathematically precise claims are suspect (since it can't be backed by science).

Sandra's argument is that it's possible for some sciences to be mathematically precise without inherently being suspect.

This gives plenty of support for Taylor disagreeing with D and Sandra agreeing with D. This means Sandra disagrees with Taylor on D.

Let me know if that isn't clear!

30-34 is the author's MP and the rest of the psg is the author supporting this point!

#help

Could someone please explain in a different way why D is wrong for #16?

MUST the doctor (the author) first explicitly correct the misdiagnosis before prescribing medication? When I read D, I assumed that it's equally possible to interpret it as a situation in which the doctor corrected the misdiagnosis and then prescribed medication for the correct diagnosis.

Is this too big of an assumption to make?

I also thought the "data" in A was analogous to essentially the entire 3rd paragraph minus the 1st sentence (which is obviously the conclusion) so I immediately eliminated A. How can we parse through the paragraph and decide what counts as data?

This is probably too late to help you but it might help someone else!

The author's opinion on the research team's work (which is in P3) is in P4 so to analogize the approach the author has to the research team, you need to remember/refer to info in both P3 and P4.

D says P is driving X Y Z death rates up even higher, which is relative to the death rates X Y Z are already experiencing because of widespread starvation. I'm not sure the death rates can be considered overall as "extraordinarily" high based just on D because we don't even know the baseline death rates resulting only from the widespread starvation and we don't know how much P's contributing to the overall death rates. "Widespread starvation" may kind of imply that the rates are extraordinarily high but based only on P's contribution to the death rates being characterized as significant or not is not enough to tell us that the overall rate is extraordinarily high.

But I do think that if there was an explanatory component to D for P's reduced population, it'd make a good AC.

Instead of reasoning why an AC is wrong for some potential secondary reason, it's best to be able to identify the main reason why an "explanation" doesn't work. In this case, D's wrong because it only explains one of the two things we need to explain, whereas B explains both. That's a surefire way of getting the right AC.

If regular tv watchers are much more likely than other people to be regular newspaper readers then we can't confidently say the premises (tv = careful discussion of public issues disappears, newspaper = maintain careful discussion of public issues) support the conclusion (that regularly watching tv, unlike regularly reading the newspaper, increases tendency to oversimplify public issues). If it's the same people regularly doing both activities, how can we be so certain that they're more likely to think of public issues in oversimplified terms (the effects of tv) rather than maintain careful discussion of public issues (the effects of newspaper)? We don't and this is exactly how A weakens the support the premises give the conclusion.

D has no impact on the argument. It just says that equal time is given to each side. But it doesn't address the problem with tv news programs, which is that they allot too little time (only 30 seconds) to each side and so watchers only get a superficial understanding that reduces careful discussion. Who's to say that they'll have a greater understanding after hearing multiple views? If it's still 30 seconds, maybe they'll just remember another slogan. You would have to make a lot of assumptions to make D right.

fiction*

You can have a firm belief in something that is not true. That's the difference. I believe the tooth fairy is real. Does this mean the tooth fairy is real? Of course not. My belief simply doesn't reflect what is true of the world. The same goes for C.

We don't care that Calista BELIEVES (firmly or not) the public will benefit from the info because what if she's wrong and there is no evidence of increased cancer rates resulting partly from cell phones? Just because she believes it, doesn't make it true.

But to justify this application we need to know that her belief is TRUE (that there IS in fact evidence that shows increased cancer rates partly from cell phones) AND that her expressing this belief will NOT be harmful to people generally, which is exactly what B does. C doesn't give us any of this info and only tells us what Calista believes.

We don't really care how the scientists detect the methane. I think C and D try to get you to think about how the scientists detected the methane but it's just irrelevant to the argument. The argument concludes the methane found must have been released recently purely from the fact that methane falls apart when hit by UV.

Unfortunately we can't annotate directly onto the digital. We can only highlight or underline, which I think would work fine in this case (just highlight/underline "poetry" and "feeling" so you can quickly reference it). Alternatively you could use your end-of-paragraph notes and remember where to find the info.

#help

I picked C originally but then switched to E during BR.

For C, I thought you couldn't assume that just because most of the workers who get injured filed for comp the same day that those who don't file the same day are more likely to be lying (because what if they all just happen to have valid reasons for not filing while still working - like the situations mentioned in A, B, and D)?

I thought the assumption required in E (that the workers were aware the factory was closing) was a much bigger jump than the jump required for C (which is that the workers who didn't file until after the factory closed had valid reasons not to file the day of).

Am I missing something?