currently for RC drills on manual selection, there is only the option to filter by difficulty and PASSAGE type. But i would like the option to filter by question type as well. i think it would be useful to drill passages with those question types where I know I am lacking.
This kinda filter view is available on the "Questions" page, but not the drill page. So i was relying on that to add passages manually in the drill.
differing competitions between the two societies (prehistoric v hunter gatherer) is a part of their environment and/or lifestyle. suuure
as if B and D didn't just use the exact words from the passage but they were wrong cause of the words "various societies" and "previous century" respectively.
BUT C is correct bc i am supposed to infer competition means "part of their environment/lifestyle"
i mean, forgive me i guess for reading but not interpreting 🙄
"...a rule whose implementation would likely cause less harm than it would prevent"
....... what?
i tried to parse this ridiculous sentence. then i tried to imagine what kinda situation this could be describing. No help. If someone got this right, pls explain what process you used. I hate feeling like i couldn't get an answer right despite understanding the stupid ass passage itself.
Isn't outpatient treatment also happening IN a hospital? or is outpatient just a clinic? What are they doing in outpatient center/facility/NOT-a-hospital/whatever the fuck it is?? christ
@EdithM how about we team up and disestablish their monopoly? GRE and JDNext are the current alternatives. I do think not pushing back on their nonsense just allows them to keep doing it. So we either take em down or we participate in the good reform. any of these routes need motivation ofc. So we could use you. We're still students but we're also learning to argue back. Great opportunity to fight honestly. :]
this should be tagged as "math". i was here making the 'confused math lady' face. I mean how else can you differentiate B and D?
@PowerUp_Tutoring pls elaborate. how are you using highlighter to eliminate wrong answers?
how frustrating. I select pink highlight for one question. I move to next question. It defaults to yellow. I don't want the yellow. i want the pink.
what a stupid problem to have.
sigh.
@Natsai_Ndebele click on the highlighted part and an option "remove" shows up.
thanks for rolling it out in time. I started using this and i noticed some problems with the interface on an RC section:
i prefer pink while reading the passage. But when i move to the questions, the highlighter color defaults to yellow. Why is that? just keep it to the last used color.
idk how to explain this without showing like a screencap whenever i move to the next question, the passage view "jumps" or shifts to a different part of the passage from where it was before. This is annoying AF. Especially for those questions involving 'meaning in context', implied, function a paragraph, etc.
I need the dang passage view to STAY consistently at where i leave it as I move forward in the questions.
Before you could place the text cursor in the middle of a WORD and click+select would highlight the entire word. Now clicking+select will just highlight the word partially. Makes the word look like a half lit neon sign.
overall all the design changes have been some really counterintuitive features. But these problems come across as erroneous rather than a makeover. So it would be nice to have them fixed.
when you negate "most" to "few" you'd be so confused
but if you negate "most" to "not most".. the extreme of which is "none", this choice make sense.
strengthens by giving a causal mechanism.
It's hard to notice at first that E is a causal mechanism. But his premise is that the advertisers will profit. Concludes, advertising time will not be harder to sell even if the cost of advertising on tv increases.
E) shows how they can profit - as people watch more ads, the advertisers are likely to profit despite the costs.
"The relative chance of an accident affects the overall likelihood of injury"
I dont like how this consideration is allowed by the LSAT for this question only.
In another type of question, you can weaken an argument that concludes about injury percentage based on data about accident percentage, by showing "accident does not always result in injury". But here, you are using the probability of accidents to weaken a claim about injury.
how does that make any sense??
C) spectroscopic data DID play a role in our understanding of the process of nuclear fusion in at least ONE instance - our sun's heat generating ability.
Spectroscopic data showed our sun was mostly hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium are two elements that can undergo nuclear fusion to produce heat. This explains sun's heat.
BUT the problem with C is that it did not contribute to understanding nuclear fusion broadly. There's also no indication of whether spectroscopy was "unacknowledged". We do know it's crucial tech.
@Hanifa yes you are. every other AC fails. so you make this assumption to justify it. It's not super unreasonable. But at the same time it's not the most common sense assumption either.
ngl even tho this is a 3 star question, (E) looks very very similar to just the conclusion restated. So you have to rely on negation test.
that is true. i would think B as an additional/separate piece of evidence that supports the conclusion independently. It does not touch on the topic of cars. Author is telling us so much about these cars and corrosion not being a case anymore. So its in your best interest to assume author thinks these cars have something to do with the principle.
when i read this stimulus, i assumed that a business in DOWNTOWN does not have its own parking space. Cause usually in a city's downtown, you'd have to roam around the block looking for street parking spots which are always parallel parking spots.
BUT there are downtowns with shops that have their own parking spaces ofc.
i thought i was crazy for thinking this was REALLY fucking hard for a FIRST question of section 2. smh.
i genuinely dont think youd get this right if you dont know the meaning of "preponderance". You need the meaning to know that you have to consider the difference between the 10 and 20, Like dude, cmon.
my bad in thinking "exacting ethical standards" meant the same as "enforcing ethical standards".
ANYWAY, (C) is wrong bc what is actually supported is that "some medieval guilds enforced standards of conduct". These may not be the same as "ethical standards"? could be standards about how to talk to your clients and such idk
Whereas (B) just says "these guilds enforced some standards" and this is vague enough to be supported than (C) was.
i really don't think i would have gotten this right under timed even when I know the difference is between "decide quickly for the problem" and "problem is a recent one"
There is an indefinite amount of nonsense to keep track of while reading a passage and to expect me to notice them during timed is ridiculous and i hate it.
So i think my next best bet is to actually focus on strong words in the answer choice and the passage:
D) only recently. It's true that "recently this is a problem" but author did not suggest the problem has never happened before.
the remaining answer choice:
E) today's decisions on what to keep will influence future generation's understanding of history.
Author does suggest that some important works of Plato survived, but there are also many other important works that did not survive. When he calls it important, he likely agrees that it has influenced our understanding of our history. This then supports what he thinks of the future's generation's understanding of today's records.
It might help to back to passage A and read what she defines "social capital" as:
the invisible, informal ties that bind our society together
Author B's basis for the injustification is that more people are NOT going to enjoy this art. This caaaan be loosely, begrudgingly be implied as "will not bind our society together" or atleast won't build a larger society.
This is my understanding. i just think "culture is not a public good, so author B would think social capital will not be built" is just so off the charts bro