Thank you @selenesteelman792 !

Hi @sunday9t9t677 Thanks for your reply. I'm asking because I'm not sure whether schools will be annoyed and won't be open to negotiation after I already ask one time.

Btw, is it better to make a phone call or write an email? If you make a phone call you can't show them other schools' offer right? Then why would them believe you? I'm not sure how this whole negotiation process would work. Thanks.

Under time I had the two contenders C v. E.

The assumption that I need to make to make C work is people who are encouraged to use the techniques actually used the technique. Also, I need to assume that reducing lower back stress reduces lower back pain (the LSAT is playing on our bias, we would think it's correct, but we just cannot assume the relationship between the two things if the stimulus didn't tell us).

For E, the assumption is that regular physical work means consistent physical exercise. The latter is a more reasonable one to make. And regular physical work does mean that you consistently do body work (exercise).

Lesson learned: when you have contenders, read both of them carefully again and compare the assumption that you need to make the answer choice work. Pick the one that has the least assumption. Also, be lenient with words that are different but convey the same concept.

Q19

(A)

What’s the historical mainstream in Passage B? If it’s the Roman concept of gender relation—women in the household, man is the ruler, like Augustus—then was women’s history integrated into the historical mainstream? What does women’s history mean here? Just history about women? Or history of individual women, how they engaged with the world? The phrase used here is general, not modified. Even though the author of passage A would like to see particular women’s history being written into the historical mainstream, answer choice (A) is simply saying women’s history. So I think if the mainstream means Roman concept of gender relation, then women’s history is certainly included in the mainstream. Women’s role as housewives, the foundation of the health of the state, these are emphasized in the mainstream.

(C)

I think the passage more illustrates the political influence on women than political influence of women. Women didn’t have much political power. They stayed at home. The political atmosphere assigned women this domestic role.

(E)

There is no problem in this answer choice. Even though the author of passage A would think gender history tends to obscure particular women’s history, the analytical tool of gender, which is itself neutral, can still be useful. For example, it can tell us about culture and politics.

Q25

(A) This is the hypothesis of Temple. Temple hypothesized that the thick-walled pit evolved as a response to the abrasion in dodo’s guts, and thinning through dodo’s guts are necessary for the seeds to germinate. The last paragraph presents evidence provided by a leading expert that the tree has continued to exist after dodo’s extinction. So thinning through abrasion not necessary for germination of CM seeds. We cannot think maybe thinning through abrasion by other kinds of birds is necessary for germination because we have no support to say birds other than dodo eat CM seeds.

(C) Temple says the abrasion is necessary, not sufficient. In fact, from his experiment, ten seeds were abraded yet intact. So the sentence in (C) is not Temple’s belief at all, let alone a mistaken one.

Q11

If (A) is the primary purpose, then the passage should say something like “these old photographic processes are beautiful, one of a kind because……”. The artists should be used to support this point, like “Estabrook and Bidaut use the old processes and their work are really beautiful” or “the fact that the artists adopt the old processes shows that the old processes produce beautiful work”. But this is not the case. The passage says the artists use the old processes because they like the aesthetic effect. The aesthetics of the old processes are taken for granted, not something that the passage is trying to prove or arguing for.

If (C) is the main purpose, then the passage just needs to elaborates on the features of the surprising recent development. The passage is doing this. It tells us why the development came into being—some artists like Estabrook and Bidaut want a nostalgic atmosphere, a contingent effect, and intimate feelings in their work.

Surprising is supported because nowadays the mainstream is going through a digital revolution, but these artists go against the trend. They are reviving what earlier artists abandoned. This “going against the trend” seems bizarre, but the author explains to us that the trend actually makes sense, since the aesthetics that the old processes produce are so appealing to the artists.

Q15

(A)

The evidence in Passage A is prehistoric human teeth. Passage A tells us that there's a link between dental caries and eating carbs/agriculture. Prehistoric human teeth shows a transition into agriculture. Then the second paragraph tells us the relationship is more agriculture, more carbs. Then the third paragraph tells us an exception.

The evidence in Passage B is human skeletal remains. Passage B tells us that evidence (found by archaeologists) shows a transition into increasingly agricultural society. Then it tells us the relationship between the skeletons and agriculture: more agriculture, more dental caries. Then it tells us the caries in Ban Chiang are caused by diets, not tooth wear. But then it tells us later Ban Chiang has less caries because of their varied diets and less cariogenic carbs. The Ban Chiang case does not really support the claim in the first paragraph that evidence indicates a transition into a more agricultural society. But it still shows a link between the two. Eating more carbs (starchy-sticky food, signifies agriculture) gives you more caries. Ban Chiang did become more agricultural, but later Ban Chiang also ate lower percentage and different kinds of carbs. I think Ban Chiang still suggests a link between agriculture and caries, even though it does not seem to conform to the general principle that more agriculture, more caries. This is how the evidence in Passage B ties back to the main point, which is easily forgotten because Ban Chiang does not seem to conform to it.

(B)

If we forget to ask why the author gives us the evidence (prehistoric human teeth, human skeletons), then (B) looks really tempting.

The author of Passage A gives us teeth and tells us the principle that more agriculture, more teeth not because he wants to tell us the principle itself, but because he wants to show that dental caries indicate a transition into agriculture.

The author of Passage B gives us human skeletal remains and tells us the principle that more agriculture more caries for the same reason as passage A, and Ban Chiang case seems to be an exception, as the last paragraph in passage A.

An easier way to look at (B) is that "overall" health is just not discussed in passage A.

(B) is basically saying the reason why the first group of people have higher levels of cortisol is not necessarily because the traumatic experience caused it, but because cortisol helps prevent PTSD. This makes sense since if people who experience traumatic events will not develop PTSD at all, they may not have cortisol at all. Cortisol is there to protect us after traumatic events because we might develop PTSD, not necessarily just something caused by traumatic events. The existence of cortisol has its own purpose. Answer choice (B) provides an alternative reason as to why the first group of people have higher levels of cortisol.

Analogy:

Today is Andy's birthday and he is not gloomy, he has a cake today. Andy's brother, Ben, whose birthday is not today, does not have a cake today. Hence, Andy has a cake today because of his birthday.

Weaken: Andy has a cake today because it prevents him from being gloomy.

Passage B line 41-43 advocates a strong position. Ultimately, lying is all but inescapable for a writer attempting to create an artistically coherent autobiography.

Q10

While A and D are both descriptively accurate, in the context of the passage, the author is saying intellectual authority and institutional authority are different (intellectual authority cannot be reduced to institutional authority). The author is making a contrast between some intellectual arguments that are accepted by institutions and some intellectual arguments that are not accepted by institutions. So we know that intellectual authority and institutional consensus (another name for institutional authority) are different. (D) is only descriptively accurate if you think about it out of context, (A) is the meaning that is conveyed in the context.

Q22

A. The passage does supports the strong language in (A). Films of the mid-1920s were dependent on the words of mouth, its ability to affect audiences emotionally. Today’s films’ appeal is losing the ability to do that. Also, from line 47-52 we can say that the vitality of today’s movies is lost, but films of the mid-1920s didn’t lose its vitality. So (A) is supported.

E. We know films losing the ability to affect the audiences emotionally causes a big difference in quality between films of 1920s and those of today. Does star system (stars being put under an exclusive contract with a company) caused the phenomenon that films lose emotional appeal? That seems a little bit far off. I was thinking whether it could an indirect cause. But does star system cause executives to be obsessed with turning a profit? It sounds so weird. That’s just the context of the phenomenon that films lose emotional appeal, not the cause of it.

I think we don’t have arguments made by CLS proponents in the last paragraph. Line 50 only says a CLS scholar “might object” that……. This is said by the author, or Meyerson (the author seems to side with Meyerson. His voice seems to merge with Meyerson’s in this passage.) This is not said by CLS. And I also feel (B) sounds like presenting the views of the two sides in a neutral way. But the last paragraph, also the passage as a whole, seems to side with Meyerson more. (A) says a criticism (of Meyerson) is identified, this is correct. And then an analogy is raised and then possible replies from CLS and Meyerson were given to see whether this criticism is tenable or not. (A) is very carefully worded. You can definitely say after reading the last paragraph, the criticism is plausible.

Q20

D. The external considerations are the purpose, policy, and value behind a rule. If one uses these considerations in determining a legal solution, one is not necessarily assuming that the policies and values are desirable. Take the game example in the last paragraph, the purpose of the game is to steal the item with highest value, Meyerson only says to achieve “best stealing” is part of the rules of the game, but it does not mean one is assuming such values are desirable. In fact, the function of the game analogy is to show Meyerson’s point that unambiguous law does not demonstrate its legitimacy.

E. At first I thought Meyerson was saying the considerations are part of the rules, period. No, Meyerson actually did not commit to an absolute position. Meyerson says such considerations “may be” viewed part of the rules of the game. And her claim that showing the law to be unambiguous does not demonstrate its legitimacy means that clear law is sometimes not legitimate. It doesn’t say clear law is always illegitimate. It’s up to the context and up to debate.

Q25

D. We know that the meaning of a law comes from social convention. The question here is whether social convention comes from jurists’ interpretations of the law? Or is it just a given fact, not up to interpretation? It seems to be the former, otherwise why would jurists have disagreements over what the underlying convention is? And if social convention comes from interpretation, it seems reasonable that it’s jurists who are interpreting the law. They’re law professionals.

E. We know there is no legal fact of the matter when jurists have no consensus. The question here is whether jurists have differing moral convictions about an issue means they have no consensus? I think consensus means most people agree, but there can be some people who don’t agree, so they are not exactly the same. Also, does consensus come from moral convictions? Not really. Legal positivists are distinguishing the law (consensus) and morality. Law does not always correspond to people’s moral convictions. So jurists may have differing moral convictions while agreeing on what the law is.

I think so. If there is causation, there is correlation. But not vice versa. If there is causation in the premise, usually it will be clearly stated.

There is no conditional relationship presented in (B). (B) is wrong because it does not help us answer "if there are distinct cultures, are there values shared across cultures or not". (B) only tells us that one day we will all share the same cultures and same values.

The second group's total calorie intake was not increased. 1/4 of the calorie intake provided by the nonalcoholic food was replaced by alcohol food. For example, originally they consumed 1000 calories per day from non-alcoholic food, and in the study, they replaced 250 calories of non-alcoholic food with 250 calories of alcohol food. It's still 1000 calories in total.

It means "alcohol occupying 20% of the total calorie has more impact on total fat gain than, say, alcohol having 130 calories in total."

In other words, is it the relative or absolute amount of calories you get from alcohol in your diet that matters more in total fat gain? The stimulus gives no answer. We only know the relative amount of calories from alcohol in the diets of both groups, the first group being 1/5, the second group being 1/4.

(E) would be correct if the stimulus tells us "Both groups consume 130 calories from alcohol. This counts as 25% of the total calories consumed by the first group and 50% for the second group. The average amount of body fat gained by the second group is much higher than the first group."

I think you have explained it yourself. It can still be true that the 5 major powers haven't been changed, so the argument is not hurt. So C cannot be a necessary assumption.

(A) points out while IPV wins over OPV in terms of the number of vaccination-caused polio, IPV loses to OPV is terms of the number of naturally occurring polio. The flaw of the stimulus is that the author fails to consider whether OPV also works well in preventing naturally occurring polio. (A) just points out a downside of IPV that OPV doesn't have. We cannot assume one case of vaccination polio is worth the same as one case of natural polio. Maybe natural polio is more virulent.

In addition, (A) also means, if switching to IPV, we will have 7 to a lot more total cases of polio. The probability of having more than 12 cases is higher than that of having 7-12 cases. So the conclusion loses some strength, even though not destroyed.

Thank you so much @selenesteelman792 !

@selenesteelman792 Thank you so much! If I stay in the cycle and see what happens in the end, does it mean that I need to rewrite everything for the next cycle? That sounds like a lot of work. And I feel I have told the best of my story in my current essays. I cannot imagine I might need to rewrite essays! I saw some school's website, like Michigan, actually recommends rewriting new essays. But I also heard it is not necessary to rewrite essays. Some say just make some small revision, or add a new paragraph. I am not sure which one is correct. Thanks!

Chris is my study buddy and he's absolutely a smart and amazing person. He's very good at the LSAT, especially when it comes to seeing the big picture of an argument. And he's always very helpful when we are having a study session. He is able to point out problems in other people's thinking process and articulates his reasoning clearly. And apparently he's already very familiar with most of the concepts on the LSAT since he has put so much hard work into it. He can explain almost every question very well! I am rooting for Chris and I believe he'll make a wonderful tutor!