@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.

I missed E bc I wasn't reading closely enough.

MOST SERIOUS doesn't equate to MORE accidents. I wrongly equated the two.

Damnnn I got this wrong bc I read A too fast. As soon as I saw the first half of it "People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have" I was like yep, matches my prediction so this covers, moving on. When actually, the second half should have totally rang alarm bells and hence been my answer.

"so there are more of them looking for jobs" totally does nothing to resolve the paradox. just bc MORE of them are LOOKING, does not mean MORE of them are GETTING JOBS.

And also, the total # of types of job-seekers looking is IRRELEVANT to explaining why a worker who shirks responsibilities is more likely to find a better job.

@vyusupov02970 think ab it like this, perturb means to get irritated so opposite of that is don't get irritated, stay calm

I initially chose E and now that I've thought about it's, it's bc I thought the answer had as "these witnesses tended to give testimony containing more details than most of the other witnesses the second time."

But it never said that.

It just said more details both times. And so E doesn't tell us anything about why it would be more accurate in the first examination and less in the second.

Reflection: I misread the answer choice.

Why is C right?

Bc if they're less likely to be influenced, then they're going to stand 10 toes behind their narrative and stick with it. Which means when everyone else is like sure lawyer, you're right, yeah, the first time, they're like nope I'm sticking to my guns. And then the next lawyer who's trying to correct it, and everyone else is like yeah lawyer, you're right (so they're coming up as more accurate, and this person's coming off as less), and this person's like no buddy, I'm sticking to my guns regardless (and coming off as "less" accurate in comparison.)

Looking back, answer E is the only one that actually talks about the poll. E came out of left field for me so I didn't pick it, but not expecting an answer on the LSAT is simply not a good enough reason to not pick it.

I originally picked D. D can't be right bc the stimulus accounts for it by saying "right before the election" so why do we care about 6 months before? I chose that bc I was like hmmm, what if they're only interviewing older people in their homes but younger people live in apartments? But that wouldn't work bc even if they did lower the voting age by 3 years where they're 15 years old, those 15 year olds would still live in homes with their parents.

Why is E right?

bc if it's true that in the poll. all the people who voted for Muratori said it was important, then we can assume they would be more likely to vote, whereas everyone else who voted for Kenner, wanted him to win, but maybe just assumed he would so they didn't think their vote mattered, and hence they wouldn't be bothered to show up on Election Day.

A real life example that helps me understand is the Mamdani vs. Cuomo New York primaries. There were probably a lot of people in NY who would've voted for Cuomo and assumed he was a shoe in and thought Mamdani had no chance of winning the primaries so they couldn't be bothered to vote. When on the other hand, everyone who voted for Mamdani described this election as super important, and so they actually showed up to the polls and brought their families too.

Lesson learned from this question: just bc an answer comes out of the woods and seems random doesn't mean it's wrong. Double check that the answer you want to choose in an RRE question isn't already confirmed/covered in the stimulus. And use real world examples in review to help you understand and remember the logical pattern the LSAT writers want you to get to.

So my prediction was that the answer was going to tell us something about the sugar. So like "the fact that raisins contain more iron per calorie than grapes do is thus puzzling."

Why? and I was thinking it was going to say it's because the sugar from raisins increases the amount of iron in raisins and it's less in grapes since they don't have the caramelized sugar.

Which is why I chose C, "The body can absorb iron and other nutrients more quickly from grapes than from raisins because of the relatively high water content of grapes."

But now looking back, this doesn't match my prediction/what I'm looking for. It does NOT explain why raisins have more iron per calorie than grapes. If anything, it weakens and does the opposite.

B is right bc since they're both the same fruit at their root of being grapes, and all grapes have the same amount of iron, then what resolves the fact of raisins having MORE iron is yes, if it's something related to the sugar. And B solves -- it DOES come to the SUGAR. B says that since caramelized sugar can't be digested, its calories don't count toward the content of raisins.

Why does this work? bc lets say both grapes originally have 100 calories and 20 grams of iron. then the grapes that become raisins become 80 calories (they get reduced since caramelized sugar doesn't count as calories) but they still stick to 20 g of iron. So now, you have two snack options with the same amount of iron:

80 cals of raisins

or

100 cals of grapes

Why?

bc the only thing that changed is bringing out the sugar being caramelized, which lowers calories. But the iron doesn't change.

It took me like 20 minutes to get this lol but now I get it.

huge congrats!

@Haleh what does "should" = Rx mean?