It's interesting I didn't choose A bc I thought it was too easy and obvious. I feel like that's a mistake I'm making pretty often and need to fix asap since my test is next weekend.

This was actually really easy when I looked at it with fresh eyes. Huh.

My LSAT spidey sense was telling me it was A and I should have stuck to that. Reminder to self!!

So my mistake here looking back is that I didn't object enough. I didn't see the flaw when I read the stimulus. Which is the cookie-cutter confusing part vs whole. Bc I didn't see it as an error, I immediately thought all the other answers matched it correctly when I should have viewed it as "this is an errored argument, let me eliminate all of the ones that are also errored in this way." I also should have expected/been open to the right answer being NOT A FLAW aka VALID. That would have definitely helped me get to B. this is a good question to reflect on for sure!

Hi there, I'm taking the test in October and would love to have a few sessions. Thanks!

amazing!

Rooting for you so hard! Just made a prayer for you that you score a 172 and have high focus and can lock in today on the test— you got this!!

this felt so easy I love it

@kellyxialove358 me too originally omg, and then as soon as I realized it, I changed my answer to B and thankfully got it right

damn it ugh I answered it as a must be true. from now on I'm going to always highlight "FALSE" or "TRUE" in the answer choice.

Ughhh I realized I missed this bc I confused many = some and that should have had me eliminate C. I also realize now I have a habit of picking an answer that doesn't relate to the ACTUAL DETAIL, I tend to pick more general answers.

Like here, we need an answer that's going to tell us about something that has changed over the past decade that's caused a decline. C doesn't tell us that. It doesn't explain an increase in the number who changes majors.

But E does that. It is the only answer that involves a change over time.

I got this wrong and chose A bc I assumed it was in comparison to Quapaw lake and I missed the fact that it wasn't in comparison. This is a FAILED alternate explanation.

This is a reminder for me to not insert my own mental comparatives into an answer choice if no such comparison is presented.

B is right bc it gives contrary evidence. If there was barely any fishing in Quapaw Lake to start with, then the ban couldn't have really done much anyways so this is a huge weakener.

if we're wondering about the causes, D answers that. but instead we're looking for causal mechanisms that explain whyyyyy they HAVE THESE CHARACTERISTICS

I just had an epiphany that I tend to be tempted by an answer each time that's irrelevant, or is too general, whereas the right answer actually addresses the situation.

Like here, B addresses countries limited alcohol use wheat D, the answer I was tempted by, doesn't address the comparison between countries with/without strict penalties.

I was tempted by C and the reason it's wrong is bc it suggests that commercial development, instead of large land mammals is responsible for more island plants going extinct.

I thought it was D but I stared at it for like 2 extra minutes bc I thought it was too easy. It's right bc it makes the biologist's hypo more likely. it suggests island plants are in fact more likely to go extinct when large land mammals have been introduced.

I was tempted by B but still stayed strong on E bc I highlighted the explanation of "proportion of jobs offering such a disability benefit has greatly increased in recent years." and knew the answer has to weaken this specifically, and point out something of why it had shrunk.

B is a failed alternate explanation.

But E works. so it is right.

I got this right changing my answer from D to E and the reason I changed it was asking myself, does D actually support the conc. of "new methods of warfare"

I think if you highlight the conclusion in the stimulus the questions get a lot easier to find support bc you don't get as confused when you read all the answer choices.

Ugh I changed my answer again bc I thought D was too easy when actually, someone explained it great in this thread. If the first time, you're just looking for red stripes and then the second time you're looking for red and black stripes, it makes sense that you would find less the second time, because your definition is more strict.

Ughhh I keep forgetting that many = some. many = some. many = some. many = some. many = some.

and here, we need something that's going to kill ALLLLL the dinosaurs. D only addresses how some of them could have been killed, whereas E addresses how they all could have been killed.

Ughhhh I picked E and then changed my answer to A. I should have just stuck with E.

The reason I picked E was bc I felt like this fact wouldn't explain why the number didn't change, if anything it would make us think the seatbelt laws should be better for prevention.

I changed my answer to A bc I thought that this would cause more accidents and therefore the number wouldn't stay the same, it would increase. But I should have stuck with my initial gut bc actually, yes, that's right, it could've caused more fatalities which would cancel out the reduction brought about the laws so it would stay the same.

@speakitintoexistence25 I also need to stop getting the ick when I see "sufficient" in the answer choices and feel like idk the answer. This answer of E can basically be paraphrased as "telling a patient to sleep more could backfire and actually prevent them from sleeping more."

I picked B and shouldn't have bc that's already validated in the stimulus. We already know that the patient sleeps 4-6 hours a night and so is getting this benefit of the first two hours a night.

I got this right but only through POE. I need to keep reminding myself what JY said in one of the RRE videos about how for RRE, weaken, strengthen, and anything phenom-hypo, don't try to anticipate the answer too hard, keep a really open mind bc otherwise you'll go for the trap answer that is incomplete but is your prediction and then the right answer feels like it's coming out of left field.

Hmmm I feel like I would've gotten this if I had equated the stimulus to like a real-world example like Trump or someone else who's very polarizing.

Another reflection is that A is put in a really wordy way but basically means everyone who loved him still loves him and everyone who hates him still hates him.

@speakitintoexistence25 and C DOES RESOLVE the discrepancy bc if they're super expensive to maintain, let's say like $10k every 4 months, then a lot of people who have them aren't going to maintain them every 4 months and so they're level of how effective they are goes significantly down.