This was my reasoning in blind review for why I choose B:

"The stimulus can be logically broken down to two premises: (1) Perpetual expansion -> Impossible to Comprehend - Make one Intriguing (implication that mystery = intriguing) and Intriguing -> Inspire Perpetual Curiosity. This allows us to conclude that Perpetual Expansion of One's Mind leads one to inspire perpetual curiosity in others. In analyzing the answer choices, A is incorrect, because it is a reversal of premise 2. B matches up with the conclusion, so it is correct. C is incorrect, as that is only one part of the logical chain of premise 1. D is incorrect as it is a reversal of the conclusion. E is incorrect, because it does not conclude that one will inspire perpetual curiosity of others, only that it will inspire curiosity. "

A - this is incorrect, because it would strengthen the argument by showing the potency of the pesticides and the ability of the pesticides to stick around. B - this does not weaken the argument, because even if most are not banned for use, we are talking about the pesticides that are. C - this is weakens the argument, because it shows that the practice does not greatly increase the risk, because the risk would incur even without the U.S. producing them. D - the risk posed to non U.S. consumers is irrelevant to the argument. E - this is also irrelevant, we are talking about pesticides banned by us that the us still produces and exports.

A - this is incorrect, because it does not have to be only governments that take an interest in the well-being of children that subsidize day care. There could be other reasons why a government would want to sponsor day care. B - The stimulus does not talk about the economic feasibility of subsidizing day care, only that a government should subsidize. C - the argument is saying that the government should assist so that it is available to all, and it does not set limits on who should receive help or not. D - this is correct. If the government should do anything that helps children, and we are proposing subsidizing day care, then we need to assume that at least some children would benefit from that action. E - this is incorrect, because we do not make a comparison between government and private enterprise. It is only a discussion on what the government should do.

Need to drill in my head that "claim that (insert individual) is attempting to justify" = same as conclusion. I was looking for an answer that outright stated conclusion, did not see it, panicked, and then overthought this and choose D.

Thank you so much for the spreadsheet! I will use this to avoid having a repeat section.

This is a skip and guess

the contrapositive of all gucci is no gucci and that sums up how I did on this passage.

@ I believe so, what is your email?

It depends if you plan on applying ED. One ED program I am looking at is due Dec 1st. Nov scores come out Nov 29. I will have everything else ready for my application, and should be able to apply Dec 1st without issue. For the RD programs I am looking at, early Dec applications are still considered early so I do not foresee any issue with being "late." The best thing you can do for your application is having a strong LSAT score, so if November will give you a better shot to do so then October, then that is worth the tradeoff even if you are applying a month later then you originally intended.

Are you doing blind review? It is helping me build my confidence in the fact that I do know the material.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please send me your email addresses when you have a moment.

@ Confirming receipt of your email address.

Once received, I will randomly split us up into groups. And then each group can schedule amongst themselves the day/time/and section that best works for them.

Also, if I accidentally tagged the wrong person, I apologize.

Did anyone else make an unwarranted assumption that shrinkage = could not be straightened again?

For everyone interested, would you all be comfortable with sharing your email addresses? I can send along the information needed to coordinate this (Zoom link, potential times, etc.) over email.

Last lesson, I wrote out the logic and got it wrong. This lesson, I reasoned it out in my head and got it right. Hopefully, I can do both in future.

@ Full transparency, I am not perfect at it, but I would say spending thirty seconds to read the stimulus, taking a look at the question stem, and glancing at the answer choices and then deciding to skip is not a bad approach. I have been setting a goal for myself not to spend more then 1:10 on a question (give or take). When I have hit that time, and I still do not know, I select the answer I am leaning towards, mark it, and move on. So one way could be setting a maximum time limit you will spend on a question. Another could be identifying (via your analytical page) which questions you struggle with the most. If for example you struggled with flaw questions, it could be worth immediately skipping those and trying to get to the questions that you might do better at (such as strengthening for example). Other, more experienced LSAT individuals might disagree with my approaches, but as someone who struggles with text anxiety, I am throwing what I can at the wall and seeing if anything will work.

I have done RC hero and would be down!

The stimulus says that animals and plants release C-14 when they die. So, could the C-14 that gets into the soil from the atmosphere (like in option D) have come from an animal's death, putting C-14 back into the air?

This passage snuffed me in the face.

Similar experience. These are my scores from my last two PTs. 154 timed, 168 blind and 161 timed, 168 blind. Trending in right direction, but it is clearly an anxiety thing and a focusing issue. It can take a minute or two for me to get in the swing of it, and I am making common mistakes that I never would during a blind review (like missing a 2 or 3 star question). Time winding down, frustrations over spending three minutes on a question, etc., has not helped. The jump from 154 to 161 though, what I did was use a more aggressive skipping strategy. I jumped around and found the ones I knew, building my confidence. Hope to do that strategy again and see if I can hit a 163 on my next PT with a target of 170 for my blind.

I got this right during my PT, but spent a considerable amount of time during blind review thinking about it, and what ultimately sold me on B was re-arranging the stimulus.

P1: Farmers who use genetically engineered plants on a large scale are at great financial risk.

P2/Sub-Conclusion 1: Because at any time a study could be published that would undermine what little confidence consumers have in genetically engineered food.

P3: [Swapped out the referential] Genetically engineered crops do not fetch a high enough price to compensate for the risk.

C: [Added Conclusion Indicator] Therefore, it is unwise for farmers to grow [swapped out the referential] genetically engineered plants.

I am starting to think of this as a puzzle, and that sentences can be arranged to figure out what the conclusion is.

Thank you @ and @ !

Interested!