Depending on when you started, you may not actually remember the earliest tests that you've taken, whether it was for drilling or PT. So give it a shot – poor memory can be, sometimes, useful.

I concur with @gabidavila0525229 and would add that you shouldn't just see why the right answer is right, but also analyse why the wrong answers are wrong, especially the ones you were attracted to. Also, 7sage allows you to see which type of question you're worst at. Take advantage of it and at least run/rerun that type of question in the curriculum.

There was a pretty tough analogy question in like 109-110 where the correct answer was A. So wouldn't really count on that.

Reasoning on why B is incorrect is somewhat questionable because why are we putting = between wouldn't be wrong and would be right? Because wouldn't be wrong also could mean neutral. A gray area exists.

I was kinda surprised that people found this question so difficult.

What I did was is to find a conclusion in the stimulus, as JY always says, and then try to connect it with the premises. Which brings the question, why exactly we should do that?

You may have probably assumed in your head that everything that brings public good should be implemented, and, therefore, missed that part.

I guess you can't, given the time limits. Yet you can pick it and come back later if you're left some time by the end.

If you actually think of it, this question isn't so hard as opposed to questions with super dense language and unfamiliar terms. At least in my case, it was that I was kinda drained and got baited to select A without reading and giving much of a thought to the other options.

Ah, was blindsided with my own experience/assumptions on whether exercising helps to deal with stress (thinking it does), so skipped E presuming that it's not flawed but it actually is totally workable argument.

Good lord, these sentences are sometimes so dense to comprehend. Literally couldn't fathom what the stimulus was saying.

I guess that's where the first sentence comes into play. Yes, they have hepatitis. But the incubation period was not due yet at the start of the experiment. It kinda requires an assumption that the researchers didn't know or didn't care for some reason.

Please help!

Still don't get how cultural differences can significantly affect symptoms of mental illnesses. It's my understanding that culture means language, food, traditions, literature, and etc. But it doesn't explain nor make sense in the frame of the argument.

Or was the word "culture" an overarching term to be politically correct and subtly hint to genetical differences between ethnicities? If that's the case, only then it starts to make sense.

Was kinda confused as to why it's not showing your pfp. And only then I realisied that you're the Kevin Lin :-/

It's sort of common sense. Or reasonable assumption, one might say. At least for those who have been driving for a while and have seen traffic jams, which are loaded and, therefore, slower.

I would concur and add that D says that more fat was consumed because people who reduced red meat consumption simply compensated that by eating other foods while those who didn't reduce red-meat did not consume other stuff.

Whereas C simply says that both groups eat foods high with fat. Which doesn't really help to explain the difference.

A huge problem with C is that it requires either (i) making an assumption or (ii) knowledge about diseases. I have no background in biology or in any related field about diseases. But what my common sense tells me is that for this argument to work (weaken), I have to assume that Ebola spreads only from an animal to human, not from human to human. Even if I were to take for granted that yes, a rat is a host animal, does it preclude that it can, first, spread from a rat to a human elsewhere, and then that human spreads it further Athenians?

The problem, indeed, could be fixed by knowledge in biology. Which is unreasonable to expect from a common person. There are variety of diseases. Which makes you make the assumption.

I did choose B though.

What "anythingforselenas" is trying to say is that JY, throughout lessons and PTs', multiple times said do not attack the Goku (do not attack the premises), except for extremely rare cases which you are virtually impossible to encounter. But what we're doing here is attacking the Goku.

I took that recommendation with a grain of salt. Maybe generally we shouldn't attack the Goku, when there's another option that attacks the connection between premises and conclusion instead. However, that's far from being universally true.

I see why C is correct given the explanation of the stimulus.

But I don't understand how in the world we're to interpret the stimulus in that way. Stimulus directly says that attrition accompanies migration. It doesn't mention or refer in any way to feeding places. And reasonable inference of that would be something like that birds die during migration for whatever reason.

Please help. I don't get how we're to link attrition accompanying migration with feeding places and being vulnerable to predators.

I do agree with you that E is correct (got that on BR tho). But Ajwang0005 is justifiably presents his argument. A still works. Not in the best possible way, but works. Because it shows a clear correlation, which strengthens the argument.

In the absence of E, A would be the correct answer since the question asks for the one that"most strengthens". It's just the case that E is slightly stronger since the conclusion in the argument focuses on infants, which is exactly what E does, while A doesn't really focus on infants. Not even mentioning that A doesn't really specify whether a decrease occurred from big families to small. Meaning that small families could have gotten even smaller, and it doesn't really help us to speculate about the increased likelihood of exposure to gems.

Yep. Should have read E more carefully. I took it in a way that it was a comparison between children from small families and big families.

Noticed that on BR tho. Also didn't like A because it was pushing us to make more assumptions to bridge the gap in the stimulus.

Well, what might have aided you (in a bad way) to select D is that you may not have read the stimulus careful enough. Because the hypothesis in the stimulus tries to connect heavy metals in the sewage sludge to antibiotic resistance. While D tries to connect sewage sludge itself and, respectively, all its content, meaning antibiotics, and to antibiotic resistance.

Hope that helps.

OMG, I'm so excited to see that you replied. Watched so many of your videos on youtube and found them to be extremely helpful. So I just wanted to say thank you!

And yeah, you're right that I missed that. I realized it after like 8 minutes of posting my comment and couldn't edit it. It totally works in the LSAT world and within its set of rules. E.g. how negation works here and how we're to use them.

But if we were to move aside from the LSAT and try to put it in the real world, I still struggle to make this work for the reasons mentioned above, like "some" is too squishy. Because some people already take mercury.

But I see the pattern tho. Thank you for your input!

Assumption still shouldn't work and, I would argue, doesn't work even with negation.

Ok. Let's negate and say some people take mercury. Who are those people? We already assume even without B that some people take mercury – people who have venereal diseases, like Beethoven. The word "some" is too squishy. The same goes without negation – some people don't take mercury. Yeah, what do we get from that? And to strengthen my argument, I might even use premises given at the beginning – what about those who were poisoned like Newton? They do not qualify to be "some"? Or poisoning doesn't happen through ingestion?

That's a totally illogical question.

B simply doesn't address the problem. One might even say that it's simply out of scope. Yeah, people fall asleep, same as they did in the past – nothing says that the amount/proportion of people who smoke in bed and fall asleep changed in any way. Hence, it doesn't help to resolve the paradox.

If B was saying something like that the proportion/amount of bed smokers who fall asleep increased while it's deadly dangerous, the answer would help to resolve the problem. Until then it's not.

I wouldn't really focus on the "often". Let's put it another way.

Imagine that a landlord (lessor) is buying a bulb. One cost $10 but consumes 100 watts (or whatever energy measurement is) an hour, while the other costs $15 dollars but consumes only 30 watts an hour (in the sense of providing light they're about the same). Which one do you think the landlord has most incentives to buy? Before answering this, consider that it's not the landlord who pays electricity bill, it's the leasee. Which means that the landlord doesn't really care about how much energy is spent whereas he is the one who pays for the bulb.

You may, of course, say that lease terms differ and some are included and etc. Yes, they're different. Some are included in the monthly rent and some are not. Hence, market as a whole acts differently and energy efficiency varies tremendously.

Which could be fixed by the government by setting a standard. And that undermines the objection.

The problem with this explanation is that there is still a difference in age no matter what. Because, let's say, it takes 365 days to mature. While A says that the difference is not more than the time required to mature. Which means that one tree might be older from the other, for example, for 320 days.

This, in turn, means one tree matured earlier, hence, following your explanation, blocked the sunlight from the other – the one that is still immature. Which should, according to your explanation, lead to the death of the other.

I did choose A as well. But because other options sucked and were eliminated. And it kinda follows logically given the first part of the last sentence.