So true bestie

I think what helped me with this was passage was mentally visualizing the theories mentioned. "left-to-right" and "top-to-bottom" and "front-to-back." This is why staying engaged and using your imagination as you read is really important.

P1 Low: Mirror Question. Field of Sight Hypothesis/explanation

P1 High: Physicists answer for why images appear left-to-right in mirrors as opposed to something else is because we rotate our field of sight about a vertical axis. This explanation is the field-of-sight explanation.

Structure: Question, and someone else's answer

Note: During timed, I had the most shoddy understanding of this paragraph, but rough understanding of the paragraph and knowing at least where to look if a question asked about field of sight explanation was good enough to get through the questions. You don't have to understand everything said clearly. You just need something to anchor yourself on, even a rough understanding, and know where to look if asked about it.

P2 Low: Diff Explanation. Front to Back.

P2 High: Some physicists offer a different explanation, positing that it is instead front-to-back. This is clearly based on a false assumption that the thing inside the mirror is 3D.

Structure: A different explanation from the first paragraph that the author clearly disagrees with

P3 Low: Why Ppl Believe Front to back explanation.

P3 High: This explanation appeals to many people because of it's success as a partial explanation. Mirrors make us think that what we are seeing is 3D even though it's not.

Structure: Explain the appeal of explanation mentioned in P2

P4 Low: +1 Appeal: separate observer from phenomenon

P4 High: Another appeal of the field of sight explanation is the traditional desire in science to separate the observer from the phenomenon. The left-to-right explanation doesn't do this, but the front-to-back explanation does.

Structure: Add another reason

MP: The front-to-back explanation for why mirror images appear left-to-right is attractive to some because of its intuitive appeal and desire to separate the observer from the phenomenon but is ultimately wrong because the field of sight explanation is right.

Organization: Question, one hypothesis, competing hypothesis, 1 reason why second hypothesis is appealing, another reason why hypothesis has appeal but is wrong.

Tone: Explanatory, doesn't like front-to-back explanation, likes field-of-sight

POV: Physicists field-of-sight, physicists front-to-back. author

Purpose: Explain why an explanation is appealing but ultimately wrong

Q14: Prephrase: Recent research reveals innate talent isn't responsible for the superior performance but rather acquired skill and motivation.

A) It's not that they discovered something about inborn traits. It's that they discovered inborn traits aren't responsible for a phenomenon.

B) The origins? That's already wrong. It was in different domains of excellence. And ANYONE can achieve exceptional levels of performance? That doesn't feel like the emphasis. It's not suggesting anyone can be exceptional because the passage even concedes you have to have some level of competency. It can't just be anyone. Not the focus.

C) Theories? plural? I mean we get one. Innate are irrelevant??? No no no . The passage isn't directed towards proving these people wrong and innate doesn't matter at all.

D) yes. Perfect. A lot less detailed than the rest of the answers, but they like to word the right MP answer as pretty bland to make you overlook it.

E) No the passage isn't about people advising their theories. it's about the author introducing new research to say these other people are probably wrong and usher in the author's theories.

Q15: I got this question wrong because I wasn't making notice of the interesting argument structure. There are tons of "since" and two separate conclusions. Summing the argument up was the first conclusion and half of the paragraph, but then the other half of the paragraph talks about this new thing. So it's to sum and introduce another factor?

A) Proposal for educational reform? That just didn't happen, so easy eliminate.

B) Two consequences are at odds? This one is easily eliminated because it's easy to tell there is no contention in the final paragraph

C) I thought this was right during timed, because I noticed this new concept of "motivational factors" so I thought it was suggesting that we should study motivational factors. But there is literally no textual evidence to support that. There is no language to suggest "advocating." It merely states "motivation is a better predictive factor." No such prescriptive language. This just isn't factually accurate. It doesn't review the evidence against the theory of heritability. That would be like, the new research.

D) Raising and answer an objection? No.

E) Yes. The two inferences is those two conclusions. This is why it's super important that during your initial reading of the passage, you are making note of the structure and indicators. Let the grammar be your road map. Also, they hide the right answer by that convoluted referential phrasing "possible factors in the development of superior performance." That's intensive training and motivational factors.

Since I wasn't sure during timed, I think I should've gone back into the passage and just refreshed my memory or taken another glance and it would've allowed me to see those two other inferences with all those premise indicators.

Q16: MSS.

A) Difficult to determine whether superior performance has innate talent? I feel like this wasn't discussed, but I'm not 100% positive so I'm going to leave it around but remember that I can't remember textual support for this.

B) Performances requires these two things? Way too strong. Never said. absurd.

C) Where did it say this? I don't remember it talking about innate talent being required for anything, not to mention at least one field of human endeavor.

D) results in complacency? just never said and not the tone of the author at all.

so during timed I was between A and E and chose A randomly, and then during BR I chose E because I thought E was supported by P4. E is unsupported because P4 says you at least have to have talent "reasonably comparable to competent performers" plus extensive training you can make up for the difference. But it never said that innate talent doesn't matter. Just focusing on that part "does not depend in any way on innate talents of individuals" is so ferociously strong. Does the passage even have any suggestion that innate is irrelevant to exceptional talent? No. The passage more so suggests that exceptional performance can be explained by acquired traits as well. We're not saying innate can't even be a possibility. We're saying that acquired skill is also a really huge component as well.

With A, ou have to just get past that modifier "perhaps even impossible" because it's meant to be there to prime you and make you think this is an incredibly strong answer choice when it's not. it says "would be difficult" and the impossible part is just like a throwaway statement.

I don't have to know why A is right, because there's a good chance I haven't made an inference yet or I haven't connected the dots yet. You don't have to connect all the dots for an inference question. If you get four that unsupported, then choose the last man standing even if you don't know why it's right.

Q18: Purpose - Show how new evidence shows that one theory is wrong and how the evidence actually supports a different theory.

A) Revised theoretical model? Problematic cases? This is like talking about something that new explains a paradox.

B) sort of? there is the presence of new evidence, but if we're being charitable, just leave it around for now. But the author outright is dissatisfied with the evidence that the heritability theory was not adequate. Abstract phrasing, so you have to push the ideas back to see what the answer is actually saying.

C) That is a much better version of B. These certain views are innate heritability traits, and this was based on earlier research (little systemic research and previous estimates of heritability) do not apply to the class of superior performance cases.

D) The author is interpreting data I guess, like the new research, but it's not to defend the author's interpretation of data against probable objections.

E) newly formulated theoretical postulations? long standing body? weird.

Q19: I knew where this was said, and I knew what my answer choice would be. "only if those configurations are typical of chess games" so if configurations of chess pieces not typical of chess games, then they wouldn't have exceptional memory.

A) I thought this was right because I conflated sequence of moves with configuration and it's typical of games that aren't chess. If you negate that conditional wrong, that's how you wind up with. the negation isn't a configuration that's not a chess game. "of chess games" is a modifier. To negate, we negate that verb. configurations of chess pieces that are NOT typical of chess games.

This is where strong prephrasing pays off. If you rush, you land on A.

B) without spatial components? what?

C) not esp challenging? really?

D) this is so bland and terrible and just the worst answer choice ever god dam you lsat test makers.

You have to get clear on what failing that necessary condition is. A configuration typical of chess games. cool so like chess pieces set out on a game board in a certain manner, and that is within a typical game of chess. Not that, is a configuration not typical of chess games. So D could work here.

E) absence of competition?

Passage A

P1 Low: Multiplayer Online Games

P2 Low: Castranova's Observation - Game Own Economy

P3 Low: +1 Observation: Player Auctions

P4 Low: Currency Trading. Sell Virtual Item. Pay Real Money.

Passage B

P1 Low: Multiplayer Online Games

P2 Low: Strictly Virtual Trade Taxable?

P3 Low: Answer - No.

P4 Low: Contrast, Game commodification, yes tax.

Note: During timed, I had NO idea what P4 was saying, and I was hoping the questions wouldn't ask me a question about it because the grammar and content was so difficult for me to understand. Unfortunately, there was a question about this, and because I had such a shoddy understanding of the paragraph in the first place, best to skip. What I had such a hard time parsing out with this paragraph was finding the main verb of the first sentence. I thought "tax doctrine" and "policy counsel" were two distinct nouns. There is a "tax doctrine" and there is a "policy council" so like a council for policies. In actuality, "counsel" is the main verb. counsel (verb) = to give advice. I'm so silly, but I was thinking of "council" with an "i." I feel like that was very intentional for them to use counsel with an "e" there. Totally did not realize that during timed. So the sentence reads "By contrast, tax doctrine and policy advise that you should tax the sale of virtual items for real money."

So bummed I got this wrong during timed. I think because it was at the end I was rushing, and I didn't notice the glaring flaw.

Premise: Swollen tonsils give rise to breathing problems during sleep, and the surgical removal of children's tonsils has been shown to alleviate sleep disturbances.

Conclusion: Removing children's tonsils before swelling even occurs will ensure that the children do not experience any breathing problems during sleep.

During timed, I thought the flaw was that even though swollen tonsils may gave rise to breathing problems during sleep, the removal of children's tonsils before they swell could cause health concerns or something. Which very well could be true, but that idea/flaw is not happening within the conclusion. I hyperfixated on the "So removing children's tonsils before swelling" so much that I wasn't really processing the rest of the conclusion, which led me to think that it was a different flaw because I wasn't seeing the argument in its entirety. For my original prephrased flaw to work, the conclusion should've said "So removing children's tonsils before swelling even occurs will ensure that the children do not experience any HEALTH PROBLEMS." But I wasn't focusing in on the conclusion, and the strength of the conclusion. "will ensure... not experience(ing) ANY breathing problems during sleep" ??? Just because you preemptively try to stop one thing from causing a problem, doesn't mean that there are also other things cause the same problem. Meaning, just because you stop one cause, that doesn't mean you stop the effect. The effect, ie breathing problems during sleep, may still have many different causes.

I think for flaw questions, something that I normally do that's helped me is that before I read the conclusion, I pause and think what CAN the argument pull from these premises/what should the conclusion say. And then when I read the conclusion, I contrast it with what the conclusion "should've" said, and then it's easy for me to see the flaw. For example:

What can I draw from these premises about swollen tonsils giving problems and that removing them will alleviate sleep disturbances? Well, if I remove the tonsils before they swell, then what I can conclude is that this may allow some children to have less breathing problems than they otherwise would during sleep. But the argument's conclusion is that it will ensure that children do not experience ANY breathing problems during sleep. Compared to my original "logical" prephrase of the conclusion, this is far too strong. Some children may experience less breathing problems during sleep, but saying that they won't experience ANY is too much. What if there are other things that may cause these children breathing problems?

Long story short: Focus on the argument, the premises support to the conclusion, and don't anticipate the flaw before you finish reading the whole stimulus, and stay extra vigilant of these super strong statements/words in the conclusion.

A) No it does not. There's no appeal to authority.

B) I thought I was being so clever being like "yes duh, the assumption is that they think removing children's tonsils before swelling is healthy." Don't ever prephrase the flaw before you finish reading the stimulus. Also, I should've realized this is a circular reasoning answer choice.

C) No no no. Completely different flaw.

D) Sure the argument doesn't do this, but that's not the flaw.

E) Yes. Perfect.

I knew in my head that it was some form of sufficiency necessity failure, but the "prosecutor wanted to charge" vs. "clearly not embezzler" threw me off. I couldn't succinctly prephrase what was going on and that made me misstep in the questions.

If Frank has not been indicted, all we know is that the prosecutor hasn't charged Frank with embezzlement. The prosecutor charging Frank with embezzlement is separate from the idea if Frank is an embezzler or not.

So to prephrase the logic, a conditional statement is set out, we fail the necessary, but instead of failing the sufficient as the conclusion, the argument instead concludes a different idea.

It's sort of like belief vs. fact, where someone may believe something "prosecutor wanting to charge Frank" vs. Fact (If Frank was the embezzler or not). It's not really belief on the prosecutor's side, I guess more of someone doing something.

Honestly for this one you don't even need that firm of a grasp between belief vs. fact. As long as you know that the argument fails the necessary, you can get rid of the other four because none of them besides C fails the necessary condition.

A) This satisfies the necessary, so on that alone we can get rid of it. And the conclusion is about "knowing" still when it should be like a conclusive "the appoint did not cancel" or whatever. This AC should've said "If Rosita knew that her 9:00 appointment would cancel, she would not come in to work until 10:00. Rosita came in to work at 9:00. So Rosita's appointment did not cancel." This argument is a different flaw in that it satisfies the necessary and then claims the sufficient as the conclusion. This is a classic sufficiency necessity mix up. To match this AC, the stimulus would've had to say "If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. Frank was indicted. So clearly the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement."

B) Nope. This fails the sufficient, and we need to fail the necessary. This also doesn't have the other idea of like "knowing" or "wanting" or "believing." The flawed reasoning in this AC is that it fails the sufficient, and then fails the necessary as the conclusion. This AC should've said "If Barry believed he had won the lottery, he would stay home to celebrate. But Barry did not stay home to celebrate. So obviously he did not win the lottery." For the stimulus to match this AC, it would've had to say "If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. But the prosecutor did not charge Frank with Embezzlement, so Frank was not indicted."

C) Yes. This gets the idea of "belief" in the sufficient condition, failing the necessary, and then claiming a fact instead of the failed sufficient. A tiny hurdle you have to make is "he would rush home" is failed by "Makoto is still at work." If Makoto is still at work, that means he did not rush home.

D) This satisfies the necessary. This is like a better version of A because it at least gets the belief in the sufficient and then the conclusion is a "fact," but it's still wrong. This AC should've said "If Tamara believed she was getting a promotion, she would come in to work early. Tamara did not come in to work early. Therefore, Tamara did not get a promotion." To match this AC, the stimulus would've had to say " If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. Frank was indicted, therefore Frank is an embezzler."

E) This has that idea of belief vs. fact, but the premise is the fact instead of the conclusion. It's all sorts of wrong. This AC should've said "If Lucy believed she was going to be fired, she would not come in to work today. Lucy did come in to work today, so clearly Lucy is not going to be fired." To match this AC, the stimulus would've had to say "If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. Frank was charged with embezzlement, so clearly he was indicted."

I got this right through POE as well. My prephrase before diving into the questions could've been more clear, and probably would've let me see the right answer choice more vividly.

Conclusion: Predatory pricing should be acceptable.

Why?

Premise: The mere threat of renewed competition will prevent the company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels.

Well, this seems like a bridging type NA. What does preventing a company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels have to do with deliberately selling your products low enough to drive competitors out of business? They HAVE to be related in some way.

So, if a practice prevents a company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels, that practice must be acceptable.

Look at that prescriptive conclusion. It's saying that something is good, it's okay, it's ACCEPTABLE.

A) What? What is this idea of company and success? We are talking about if a practice that a company does is acceptable or not. Not something about a company and if they are successful and what a successful company does?

B) Okay? Why does that have to be true? What if sometimes there are several companies that engage in predatory pricing at the same time? What does that have to do with anything?

C) Okay and? I don't see how that has to be true? Why can't it be a small sort of wealthy company? Or a medium sized not wealthy company? These modifiers/adjectives are unnecessary.

During timed I was between D and E. I was like "okay, both of these have pretty strong logic" but what ultimately made me choose E was that it at least said "should be acceptable" which was our conclusion, and so I just went for it.

I couldn't explain why D was wrong during timed, but I just liked E better.

D mapped out says

Keeps companies from raising prices ---> threat of competition.

But that doesn't have to be true. What if there are other things that keeps a company from raising prices, like I don't know, the federal government tells you that you can't raise prices. This just doesn't have to be true. This is positing a conditional relationship between ideas in the premise.

E) The any made me very very very skeptical with this. But something I've noticed with harder curve breaker NA questions/answers, is that the right answer is probably going to be a strong conditional statement, and the lsat wants to know whether you can tell in which situations you need a strong statement and in which situations you don't need a strong statement. They know that a hard and fast trick is that test takers are hunting for the weakest link, the weakest bridge. They're engineering answers to get around that. And with this AC, we NEED that bridge. The NA is the SA. Basically, you can't discount an answer just because it says "most" or "any" or "all." You tell me this practice is going to stop a company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels. and then you tell me that therefore this practice is acceptable? Well it HAS to be the case that if you do this thing, stopping a company from raising prices, you are an acceptable practice.

I think identifying the conclusion, the premise, and having a strong prephrase is the key and make or break way to get this question right.

Got this right through POE during timed, even though I wasn't sure why C was right, I just felt like the other four were wrong and didn't resolve anything.

Context: The income earned by a certain family of Australian sheep farmers grew substantially because the price for wool sold on the international market was higher than the price paid for domestic and the percentage and amount they sold increased dramatically too.

Paradox: Despite their income rising, this family did not increase in wealth.

You would expect that if business is booming with your wool in the international market, you would be making a profit. But this family didn't. so we need a reason as to why their wealth didn't increase. This could be because maybe cost of living went up where they lived and that was more expensive than the profits they were taking in? Or maybe one of their kids got sick and they had insane medical bills to pay. (okay wait I think Australia has universal healthcare, this isn't America lmao).

A) At the end? But we're talking about like the middle-ish 1800s. What would the end have to do with anything? And prices in general rose faster than the wholesale price of wool domestically? Okay but even if we were in the right time frame, we need to know prices rising in comparison to the price of international wool? Because if it rose faster than that, than that could explain it (i.e. cost of living going up faster than their profits)

B) I mean that's fine. Because this family is absolutely destroying the international market. So what does the domestic market have to do with anything. That's not a reason as to why this specific family didn't have an increase in wealth.

C) Purely chose this out of POE. I didn't see how it was right, but I knew it had something to do with something falling, and it pertained to ALL Australian sheep farmers so it applies to the specific family we're talking about. This is right because even though this family enjoyed an increased income from the price of wool, international AND domestic prices for the rest of their products fell SHARPLY DURING the period in question. Posits us in the right time frame with the right amount of detail.

Additionally, this answer choice is basically saying that wool sales is only a PART of the income earned by Australian sheep farmers. Even though one component increased, the other components shrank by a lot (sharply).

D) So competition increased. And? Australian wool producers may have been in a less favorable position than before, but the passage already told us this specific Australian family enjoyed an increased income from international wool. So even with them being set back, they still enjoyed an increased income. This doesn't explain anything. this is more like background story.

E) Okay so those who made a living from international wool rose significantly. That doesn't tell me anything about this specific family and why they didn't have an increase in prosperity. This just says other people are doing the same thing too.

I think for this question, it's important you understand what is irrelevant/doesn't resolve the paradox. If you are not clear on that beforehand, I can see how a lot of these would SEEM to resolve it.

Very proud of myself for getting this right in a short amount of time.

I identified that this was a MBF question. Then I mapped the stimulus.

Should intentionally misrepresent another person's belief ---> Interest of that person.

Then to make some that contradicts this, I just need an answer where Person A intentionally misrepresents Person B's beliefs, and it wasn't in the interest of that person.

I read A, thought it was so perfect, and moved on--not even reading the rest of the answer choices.

B) That sounds like that IS in the interest of the other person, so no. That's consistent with the principle.

C) We don't know if that's misrepresenting Maria's belief. And it's also in the interest of Maria, so no dice.

D) There is no idea of misrepresenting someone's belief here. And it's not really in the interest of anyone else besides the original person which is not our principle.

E) Okay so Wanda is a jerk, but we don't know George's belief and if Wanda is misrepresenting George's belief. It's definitely not in the interest of George.

OPA: The protesters claim that the factory could cause health problems.

Conclusion: But this worry can be dismissed.

Why?

Premise: Most of the protesters were there only because they were paid to show up by property developers who are concerned that the factory would lower the value of nearby land that they own.

Flaw: The argument attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself. Regardless of the source, the argument itself may stand.

A) Straw man argument.

B) Fear of consequences?

C) Yes. Source argument.

D) Generalization flaw. No.

E) No.

Minor premise: Oil reserves gradually drop as old oil fields are drained and rise suddenly as new oil fields are discovered.

Major Premise/sub conclusion: Oil reserves are unlikely to remain unchained from one year to the next.

Main Conclusion: Therefore, most of the nations stating that their oil reserves were unchanged were probably incorrect.

Prephrase: At least one nation that said that their oil reserve had not changed since the end of 1996 must have had at least one oil reserve that drained, or a new oil reserve was found. That's the weakest link that I can think of.

Tricky with the "oil reserves gradually drop as old oil fields are drained and oil reserves rise suddenly when new oil fields are discovered" these are two different things/occurrences. They don't have to happen at the same time.

A) Okay any nation with oil reserves already puts me off. It doesn't have to be ANY nation with oil reserves. It just has to be the nations that stated their oil reserves were unchanged. The conclusion said "most' so this already feels too strong. I think this would maybe be right had they fixed "any" with "For most of the nations that stated that their oil reserves were unchanged, etc." Because then it puts us in the right domain. As it is, the domain is too broad, and if it's too broad it's not necessary, it's probably disguising itself as a sufficient answer.

D) I don't like how the conclusion is in the sufficient condition. Our conclusion should at least be in the necessary condition, and in a super weak way. Our conclusion is that these nations are probably incorrect. So why would we need "well if they are incorrect, then...."

E) But we don't know if they changed from one year to the next, so how is this relevant? We want the likelihood to be that it did change.

During timed I was down to B and C, skipped, then came back and thankfully chose B. It was like a 65% confidence choice.

B) I was a little off put with the presence of "most" but it's not operating as an existential quantifier here. It's more so like an idea that includes most, and not most of these ideas (if that makes sense). When I came back to this question, I liked how it mentioned drained or discovered or both. It just felt right. It felt like it was stating something in a weak way, but not obviously. Like "this option, old oil fields were drained, can happen, or this option, new oil fields were discovered, can happen, or both can happen." The "most" shouldn't put you off because it's limiting you to the correct domain. I think the lsat test makers know that you are prone to eliminate answer choices with "most" because a lot of the time "most" is unnecessary for the argument. But that's when it's used as an existential quantifier. This is putting us in the same domain, so the purpose/use of "most" is different here. I also wasn't able to do the negation under timed, but the negation would be that most of these nations that did this did not have old oil fields drained AND they didn't new fields discovered. So if that were true, then how is it that they are wrong. The author assumes that these things happened in these nations because this is how an oil field can seem unchanged, but if these things didn't happen, then maybe they didn't actually change at all.

C) I loved how weak this was with the "at least one" like it's worded how you would expect a NA to be worded (which is one of the factors as to why it's such an appealing trap AC). I think there are two points of failure for me. During timed on my second pass I was like "why do I need both of these things to happen. Don't I just need one at least?" and then I chose B in a hurry. During BR, I realized C was wrong for another reason. "gradually dropped but also rose suddenly" and I was like "why does it have to do both simultaneously?' Adjectives in necessary assumptions are for the most part super suspect. Why did the reserve have to gradually drop and then rise SUDDENLY. That means that it takes like, a day to gradually drop, and then SUDDENLY it rises, so presumably a very short turn around time of rising up. We don't NEED it to rise SUDDENLY. Why can't it be that an oil reserve gradually dropped, and then like a couple months later a new oil field was discovered and THEN it rose suddenly and that's why it looks like it's unchanged. This AC assumes that an old oil field was drained and then in a short span of time a new oil field was discovered. They don't have to occurrences that happen around the same time. An old oil field can be drained at the beginning of 1997, and then at the end a new one could be discovered, and that's why a nation says it is unchanged. I think as well why I found this answer choice enticing during timed was that I assumed that in these countries, their oil reserve was like around the same level and that's why they said it was unchanged. But the argument never says that the reserve is at the same level. It just says that these countries say they were unchanged, and the author says no that's unlikely because here are ways it can rise and another way it can drop, so therefore you must be lying/wrong. So the author assumes that they're wrong and ONE of these things happened. If you make the wrong assumption that the oil reserves are ACTUALLY the same as they were at the end of the year as the beginning, then this AC would seem enticing because it's like yeah it had to have dropped and then gone up to be at the same level, but we don't KNOW if the reserves are actually at the same level.

I had a harder time with this on timed because I failed to realize that the stimulus says "of these vitamins" e.g. Vitamins A and D. when I read it during timed, I was like "well do we know if these vitamin-fortified foods contain vitamins A and D? What if they contain other vitamins that are not A and D?" which is why it took me so long to realize that B was right. I should've caught that the stimulus was talking about the same vitamins the whole time.

I'm not great at prephrasing MSS because I feel like I overstate them or go on in the wrong direction, but the right ac would be something along the lines of "Some people may consume more than the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D"

What we can't infer is that these people who eat cereal and overestimate the standard serving are GREATLY exceeding the recommended daily intake and that these vitamins are being toxic to them, because we don't know what "greatly" exceeding means. It's not defined. Does greatly exceeding mean like over 10%? Or does greatly exceeding mean like 600%? Luckily the lsat test takers didn't want to make this too hard of question and left out an answer like "Some people who consume vitamin-fortified foods greatly exceed the recommended daily intake of vitamins A and D and therefore have these vitamins operating at toxic levels"

A) We can't talk about people "knowing" facts. We don't know what they are or aren't aware of. We know some people overestimate a standard serving size, but we don't know if they know that the recommended daily intake is. Those two aren't the same thing. You can be like "oh this glass of orange juice, I think a 4 oz cup is the right serving size" and still be unaware of the recommended amount of Vitamin C is.

B) Yes. Because some people who eat cereals consume more than the standard serving size (because they overestimate what a serving size is).

C) This is about beliefs, and we don't get beliefs. We know some may believe that a standard serving size is X big, but we don't know if people believe that it's healthy or not healthy to eat more than the recommended daily intake. This is just utterly unsupported. The people mentioned in the stimulus think they are eating the standard right amount serving size, so we don't know that they believe it's healthy to eat more. This is trying to prescribe reason to why they are doing what they are doing.

D) Supplements? most?

E) Manufacturers and being unaware? Please.

Conclusion: This hypothesis cannot be correct.

Why?

Premise: Because it would require an infinite regress, and that is absurd.

Reasoning abstracted out: Because something would need x and that X would need X, etc, and that happens infinitely, this conclusion is not right.

Definitely abstract reasoning, but as long as you anchor yourself on this "infinite" idea in the premise, you should be able to wade through the answer choices.

A) There is no idea of something going into infinity in the premises. So it's not right. This premise requires a hypothetical like "well if the conclusion were true then XYX" and that doesn't happen in the stimulus. This argument is about "well this can't be the earliest because we know there were things before it." This AC has to do with temporality shooting down a conclusion, which doesn't happen in the stimulus at all. The stimulus matching this AC would be like "Some philosophers purport the mental image theory as what many visual hypothesis' derive from. However, the mental image theory cannot be the original theory of visual perception because if it were, then there wouldn't be any theories that came before it. But that probably isn't likely since there is overwhelming evidence that there were theories of this in the 1200's before the mental image theory existed."

B) During timed I did originally like this because it at least had the idea of infinity in the premises, but it uses the idea of infinity in the wrong way. This is saying that because there are infinite explanations for something, they can't all be right, so that's why this other claim that every theory is adequate as long as it agrees with empirical data is not correct. That is a different idea of "infinite." It should have said "The claim that any scientific theory is adequate as long as it agrees with all the empirical data cannot be right because this claim requires the idea that every theory explains another theory, and that theory in turn explains another theory, and so on. But such an infinite explanation chain is ridiculous." The stimulus would have to look like "Some philosophers explain visual perception by suggesting that whenever we visually perceive an object, a mental image of that object forms in our mind. However, this cannot be correct because there are infinite ways to visually perceive an object, and all those perceptions cannot all be right at the same time."

C) Yes. Perfect. Something is wrong because it would require something going on infinitely.

D) This answer choice is weird. Can't really articulate the logic going on, but it's not about an infinite idea. This goes after an implication of a belief, and since this implication is absurd, the conclusion is absurd. This should've said "Some engineers define a structure's foundation as part of that structure that supports the rest of the structure. This definition is unfortunate, however, because it suggests that a structure must support another structure, and that structure must support another structure, and that structure must support another structure, etc., which is ridiculous." The stimulus would've had to look like "Some philosophers posit that visually perceiving an object means that part of your perception helps form the rest of your perception. This idea cannot be correct, however, since it suggests the idea that perceiving itself does not have visually to it, which is ridiculous" (I tried to get that idea of one part helping/supporting the other, not the best analogous argument but I did what I could)

E) This answer is like a bad pass at the idea of infinity in the premise. This logical structure is about something not being the first because technically it's made up of smaller components of those somethings, so obviously it's not the first (because there are these other things, even though they are more little, that came before it). This answer choice should've said "Some people hypothesis that the first library was the library of Alexandria. However, this can't be right because this would require the idea that all library is made up of a smaller library, and that library is made up of a smaller library, and so on. Since that's impossible, their conclusion must be false." To mirror this answer choice, the stimulus would've had to say "Some philosophers claim that the visual perception theory was the first of its kind. However, the visual perception theory was strung together by combining other visual perception theories. Therefore, the visual perception theory couldn't have been the first."

Q1: Primary purpose. Prephrase - Describe an artist's reasoning for their style and illustrate their type of work.

A) yes. perfect. Motivation P2 and nature is P1 and P3

B) Literally the opposite. More like describe why political themes do not permeate an artist's work

C) Evolution? We get one example of one artist's work. It's not like we talk about how Gilliam started out doing one thing and how it's transformed over some time to become abstract expressionism.

D) Well, it is factually accurate that Gilliam's artistic views were rare among African American artists, but that is not the PURPOSE of the passage. If this were the case, the emphasis would've been more on contrasting Gilliam with other African American artists and what their views were. The author mentions that Gilliam's view was rare as a premise to support the larger premise/sub conclusion that Gilliam was motivated by his reaction against his contemporaries art.

E) technical limitations? The passage doesn't talk about how limiting art tools/ideas were and how Gilliam rose above these barriers. It's less so about Gilliam's work itself and more so about describing motivation and what the art work is.

Q2: During timed, I didn't know if there was like a specific point in the passage that said "Gilliam's artwork contained XYZ qualities" and so I needed to find where it said that and see those qualities reflected in the answer choices. That's probably a little too on the nose. For some reason, I thought this was an analogy question, so I thought AC E was too obvious. This is more of an application of ideas in the passage and seeing if you remembered/understood it. What re the characteristics? Not explicitly political, sensitive to daily experiences, juxtaposes surface and depth, forms a cohesive whole. I think during timed I was so focused on these more abstract characteristics of Gilliam's work, I missed the obvious, AC E.

A) I liked brightly colored but a man holding a shovel seemed too "real" and "obvious" and not abstract enough

B) photographs depicting war scenes? That's exactly what Gilliam didn't like in his contemporaries work

C) Still too obvious with real people. We need MORE abstract

So I was between D and E during timed. I did like how they both said canvas. I truly thought this was an analogy question so I was like "no E is so obvious. There must be something off about it" but it's NOT an analogy question. This question is asking take what you know from the passage, and apply it to something else. Can you regurgitate this information in a slightly different way (not an analogous way)

This does talk about a canvas, hung from a balcony like Gilliam's, but what is the point of unfurling of sails? Is this supposed to capture emotion? What do sails mean? This seems like too concrete of an idea. Sails are not representational.

E is better because for one it paraphrases lines 39-41 very well. I was also hesitant on E because it didn't explicitly say that it was not representational. I was expecting this to at least say "meant to represent the African American experience" and I'm like okay cool that is super abstract. But I guess I have to infer that something like that would be its purpsoe.

I also think I was in the headspace to NOT look for something that had to do with a canvas, because I thought we were applying what we knew into something ELSE that wasn't a canvas, like a piece of wood torn to shred to make a 3D monument that represented pain or something. I think the right answer choice could have gone that far, but the right answer choice decided not to. I was for sure overthinking this question/answer. We are explicitly told Gilliam was the first painter to introduce the idea of the unsupported canvas. So something exemplifying an unsupported canvas would answer this very well, such as a crumpled canvas i.e. unsupported canvas.

Q3: Purpose question. Prephrase - Show an example of the type of artwork that Gilliam was reacting against.

A) No. This is like the opposite of the Washington Color School did.

B) animosity?

C) popularity?

D) Yes. Illustrate = give an example of, better help you understand.

E) Okay well first of all it wasn't primarily concerned with political issues.

Q4: Attitude question: G's perspective. Prephrase - He thinks it's too obvious/on the nose. Lines 18-21. "little room for the expression of subtlety or ambiguity.

A) No he is not condescending.

B) Yes. He didn't like what they were doing so he REACTED against it by doing something that wasn't what they doing/doing something different.

C) What even is "whimsical dismissal" ? lol

D) Not neutral.

E) Not approving.

Q5: Detail oriented question. Get rid of the ones you for sure know were said. If you're unsure/between two or three answers, you can go back and double check but only if you remember where they are. If you don't', you should probably skip. You don't want to sink more time into this question than you need to. It's only question 5.

A) Yes.

B) Yes.

C) Yes.

D) I think I got confused with the comparative statement wording on this one. This is def an MSS because it wasn't EXPLICITLY SAID but easily inferred. The Color Field style was about ABSTRACT art. And Gilliam's contemporaries were not abstract enough. They were too representational in his eyes. Even though this wasn't verbatim said, it's easily inferred from the first sentence of P2.

E) I'm so mad I chose this during timed. "most likely" really? Just because Gilliam was partly inspired by laundry hanging to dry, does that mean everyday images are going to inspire artists? No. This is just garbage, but because it said laundry I was like "oh maybe this was said and I just can't remember where it was said." This should've been hacked at "most likely" because during timed I didn't remember such "strong" language/quantifiers being used. Just because it gave Sam inspiration to do abstract art doesn't mean that everyday images are MOST LIKELY to give artists in general great inspiration. Classic generalization answer.

Q6: MSS G's perspective.

A) Of ANY sort? That seems veryyyy strong, and utterly unsupported. Just because he found his contemporaries "aesthetically conservative" doesn't mean that he thinks all artists shouldn't care about aesthetic restrictions. That's a bit much don't you think.

B) Should they? Should they be? Like always inspired by real-life images? Just because the passage told us one example of Gilliam being inspired by everyday images doesn't mean he thinks images in paintings should be inspired by real life images like all the time. Also, "images portrayed in paintings in representational and abstract" need to be inspired by real-life images? Maybe Gilliam thinks in representational art you SHOULD have images portrayed by real-life things, idk. Just because we get one example of Gilliam doing something, doesn't mean that this example is representative of Gilliam's work as a whole or mindset as a whole.

C) the complete opposite in fact.

D) This honestly just felt like the right answer choice that the lsat would put. Gilliam was a part of The Color Field style. And we are told Gilliam believes we whould express the complexity of the human experience. So if you put these two bits together, then yes, this style would offer an effective means of expressing the complexity of human experience, otherwise what is Gilliam doing there.

E) The opposite actually.

P1 Low: Gilliam, Color Field - abstract

P1 High: Gilliam is acclaimed as one of the most prominent painters of a group of Color Field style painters, which included nonrepresentational, simplified works of bright colors.

Structure: Context

P2 Low: G React Contemporaries, e.g.

P2 High: Gilliam's participation in the Color Field movement was partly motivated by his reaction to his contemporaries. He thought they were too obvious and a little too on the nose.

Structure: Why

P3 Low: G's Work, Abstract Canvas

P3 High: An example of Gilliam's highly experimental paintings is his unsupported canvas, which he was the first painter to introduce this idea. By draping loose canvases, it emulated a sculptural quality.

Structure: Example of how G's work is abstract and less "obvious"

Main Point: Gilliam's work in abstract emotive expressionism is partly inspired by his reaction against contemporaries conservative work.

Tone: Explanatory, likes Gilliam

Purpose: Explain an artist's reasoning for their type/style of work and give an example of such

POV: Author, Gilliam

Organization: Context, Motivation, Example of work.

I knew I should've skipped this question on my second pass. I at least skipped this question on my first pass, but when I came back around to it, I was still so confused, and that should've been my indicator to move on. It's one point, and wasting my hard-earned extra time on this question only made the other questions that I skipped even harder for myself. If I garner extra time, I have to use it wisely. Had I skipped this question on my second pass, I think I would've gotten the other questions that I skipped right or at least raised my chances of getting them right.

My original prephrase during timed was "More rain will make a mountain snowpack melt faster" because I thought that was the missing link, the bridge if you will. When I didn't see that in the answers, I got a little flustered, and I skipped, which was good. I guess my prephrase was a little obvious, something the LSAT maybe assumes is a same presumption. I definitely didn't perceive another gap when I read it for the first time.

The conclusion is like a snowball effect. Because this thing happens (the premise) it will cause all these other things to happen. So a cause and effect. Def didn't catch cause and effect during timed because I thought I was doing more of a bridging type strengthening answer.

What do you do to strengthen cause and effect? You can show that in other cases when you have the cause, you also have the effect. You can establish temporality, to show that the cause really does come before the effect, and you can also show that if you don't have the cause, you don't have the effect.

I think another hurdle for me was that I got confused on "winter temperatures increasing." For some reason, I thought by temperatures increasing that it was going to get colder. But temperatures increasing meaning it's going to get warmer.

I also didn't separate out the whole conclusion. I thought the conclusion was EVERYTHING after "therefore." That "mountain snowpacks will probably melt more rapidly and earlier in the season, leading to greater spring flooding and less storable water to meet summer demands," but the conclusion is really "the melting of the snowpack will lead to greater spring flooding" so I didn't really see the causal chain. It's a layered causal argument.

A) well duh. That's just a reiteration of the first two premises put together. But after watching JY's explanation, I made the wrong assumption that I the precipitation would be rain. It could be snow that also counts for the precipitation, which goes against our argument.

E) Okay and? We don't even know how big the mountain snowpack mentioned in the argument is, so this is useless to us.

So basically B, C, and D are the same. They mainly differ in that the subject is different in each one. B talks about other mountainous regions, C talks about areas of the Rocky Mountains, and D is concerned about other regions of the world.

With these, if we are talking about places with mild winters (similar to how the premises talk about increasing winter temperatures) then we need to show that the conclusion is going to happen, ie. mountain snowpack will probably melt and blah blah blah.

D is probably the most easily eliminated out of the three because it just vaguely talks about "other regions of the world" like okay? Are they mountainous regions at least? What if these other places are like just cold places with no mountains. How would this be relevant? Also, there is no causation being stated here. It's more like a correlation. There are regions that have mild winters, and in those regions there is more flooding and less storable water in regions that colder winters. Like okay? Do we know that in these regions with mild winters, it's BECAUSE of the mild winters that there is more spring flooding and etc. ? We don't know. This answer choice wants us to assume that.

C also doesn't really posit a causal connection. It's more of a correlation. It doesn't tell us that BECAUSE of the mild winters, we get more spring flooding. It doesn't tell us how, just that this happens. So this answer could be consistent with a lot of other arguments. We want to know about the process, if the causal chain is really the reason.

B is the one that posits a causation connection. "the melting of snow packs has led to greater spring flooding, etc." I feel like this doesn't happen as often with cause and effect strengthening arguments, but this AC shows that you strengthen an argument by showing that the cause really did do the effect in a different setting.

Prephrase: It's the conclusion.

Minor Premise: Residents of large cities usually rely more on mass transportation and live in smaller, more energy-efficient dwellings than do people in rural areas.

Sub conclusion/Major premise: A given number of people will produce less pollution if concentrated in a large city than if dispersed among many small towns.

Conclusion: That's why increasing urbanization may actually reduce the total amount of pollution generalized.

Here they try to trick you with the "Thus" as the last sentence to get you to think it's the conclusion. It's ONE conclusion, but not the MAIN conclusion.

A) It's not a premise. The conclusion that "people should live in large cities" also doesn't exist.

B) There is no statement that calls into question that claim first of all.

C) I mean I feel like that's more like the "although" statement. The argument part definitely plays a logical role because it is the conclusion.

D) It's not a premise. Also that other line isn't even a conclusion.

E) Yes. They try to hide the right answer by not saying "conclusion"

So with disagree questions, it's more so about teasing out an MSS from both statements and that MSS you tease out from each statement will be the disagreement between the two.

Vincent: A scientific discipline cannot study happiness. (because it's subjective and subjective experiences can't be measured)

Yolanda: A scientific discipline can study a subjective experience.

Prephrase: They disagree about whether a scientific discipline can measure subjective experiences.

That was definitely not my prephrase during timed. I got this right more through POE.

A) Vincent agrees, but Yolanda doesn't comment. Yolanda thinks research relies on subjective experience, but she doesn't comment whether it's ENTIRELY subjective. She would probably agree that it's partly subjective, but that's it, and even if she did agree with this, it's a point of disagree, not agree.

B) Yolanda would agree, but Vincent never mentions optometry.

C) Yes. Yolanda would agree, because she mentions optometry and happiness research relying on subjective reports, and she thinks optometry is a scientific discipline, Vincent would say no, because he doesn't think a scientific discipline can study happiness because it's subjective and therefore can't be measured. This is where the MSS framework comes in handy.

D) I mean, Yolanda would probably agree, but Vincent doesn't comment.

E) That can't be measured? Vincent doesn't even comment on this. Vincent thinks subjective experiences can't be measured. Vincent doesn't' comment on what experiences that cannot be measured are.

Correlation: The more successful the crops, the higher the birth weights.

Conclusion: The health of newborn depends to a LARGE extent on the amount of food available to the mother during her pregnancy.

Well I mean for one this is a terrible argument.

The premises talk about crop success correlating with higher birth weights. Then in the conclusion it talks about the HEALTH of a newborn depending on the FOOD available to the mother during pregnancy?

It's basically conflating birth weight with health and crop success with food available to a pregnant mother.

Prephrase: Infers from a correlation about two things that two other things are related/one different thing causes another different thing. (not the most succinct prephrase but it anchors me)

A) Yes. I really liked this because of the "two other phenomena" because they are totally different.

B) No, that would be causation correlation of the SAME thing, when they are different in the actual argument. This would look like "The more successful the crop, the higher the birth weights. Therefore, the success of crops are the only cause for higher or lower birth weights." Also, even if you patched up B to say "two other phenomenon" the argument doesn't say that the amount of food available to the other is the only factor involved in the health of a newborn (like how bizarre would that argument be). The conclusions "depends to a large extent." So it's not the sole cause. It's a significant factor, but not the sole cause.

C) No. There is no past and present going on. This would look like "Records from 1850 to 1900 indicate that the more successful a crop, the higher the birth weights. Therefore, today it must still be the case that the more successful a crop, the higher the birth weights."

D) There is no "common cause" and no hypothesis about the "common cause" that doesn't exist. This would look like "The reason from 1850 to 1900 that the more successful the crops, the higher the birth weights is because the government was giving out money and that contributed to farmers being able to spend more on making their crops successful as well as mothers being able to eat more healthy foods during her pregnancy so she could deliver a healthy baby. The reason why the government was giving out money was because there was a pandemic and they were giving relief packages." (the argument is a little absurd but you get my point)

E) No, there isn't even a causal connection. It's a correlation. The author never stated it was causal. That's like saying inferring from one causal connection that there is another causal connection that exists and here is why these two causal connections exist. This would look like "More successful crops are responsible for higher birth weights. Because of this, the health of newborn depends on the health of a mother during her pregnancy. All of this is because food is important to babies in the womb and it contributes to their development and health as a baby" or whatever.

I'm not great at MSS so I normally spend longer on these than I should. I got this more through POE than being able to perceive/prephrase the right answer.

A) Many claims? Does this AC mean combating drug addiction and overcoming common phobias? How does the passage support that is overstated? There is no support for this.

B) I mean from the stimulus it seems like hypnosis did help recall in this ONE experimental study. This answer choice is far too large/generalized/strong for it to be the right choice. This AC would be better had it said "hypnosis may help a person's power of recall based on this study"

C) inevitably? too strong. And false memories? Half the subjects were able to recall something that was a real memory, so this AC doesn't make sense.

D) Yes. It's worded exactly the way a MSS would be worded too. The study revolves around this idea of suggestion, so this seems really well supported.

E) Visual vs. auditory? What are you talking about? What does visual have anything to do with the stimulus really?

Cookie Cutter start. Introduces other people's argument (Gillette) but then shoots it down.

OPA: Robert Gillette argues that because a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure over 3,000 inherited disorders, he concludes deciphering the human genetic code would benefit humanity despite its enormous cost.

Conclusion: Gillete's argument is not persuasive.

Why?

Premise: Because he fails to consider that a thorough knowledge of genetics would harm humans more than benefit them (the benefits don't outweigh the cost)

I knew I needed "Gillette's argument is not persuasive." I scanned the answers and realized they aren't that short, so I had to fill in the gaps. What is Gillette's argument?

A thorough knowledge of genetics will benefit humanity despite its enormous cost.

So just say that ^^^ argument is not persuasive.

That turned out not being the way they worded the right answer, but it could've been, and having a good prephrase helps steer you in the right direction anyway.

A) No, the author never said that. The author thinks that it would result in more harm than benefits. The author doesn't contest the fact that we would find cures.

B) No, that is a premise that supports the conclusion.

C) Way too prescriptive. The conclusion is about Gillette's argument. The author never makes this strong of a statement.

D) No, the author isn't saying that we wouldn't find over 3,000 cures, only like 12.

E) Yes. Not persuasive = unconvincing. Certain possible consequences of genetic research = harm human beings more than benefit.

I got this question right, but it took my way longer than it should have. I should've prephrased better/anticipated the right answer.

Most people like low fat chocolate ice cream as much as the full fat version. Previous tests reveal people dislike the vanilla low-fat version, complaining of a harsher taste. Chemists point out that chocolate is a very complex flavor.

Conclusion: Therefore, chocolate's complex flavor probably masks any difference in taste due to the lack of fat.

In other words, people tend to like low-fat chocolate more than vanilla probably because chocolate has a more complex flavor.

Gap: The argument talks about the complexity of chocolate, but then it doesn't talk about the complexity of vanilla. What if vanilla was just as complex, if not more complex than chocolate? Then this argument falls apart (that would probably be a weakening answer choice)

Prephrase: Vanilla is a less complex flavor in comparison to chocolate.

A) Who cares what they prefer, especially in regards to full-fat.

B) Okay so the subjects were part of a sound study or whatever. Doesn't matter.

C) Like sure, this helps chocolate, but we don't know about the distinct compounds in vanilla. So this does nothing for us. If you don't perceive the gap that the argument doesn't talk about vanilla compounds, I can see how this would be enticing.

D) Yes. It has to be significantly less complex, because if it was more, then the conclusion doesn't follow.

E) Okay and? who cares if they are aware or not?

Okay during timed I was on hunt mode, and found what I needed. During BR, with more time I second guessed my answer and thought an answer that could be like an MSS could be the right choice (B). But then the more I thought about it, the premises are about overcrowding would still be a problem even if people moved to mars, and then it says "this solution would be temporary," so if you put it together,

Moving to Mars would still leave Earth with an overcrowding problem, therefore this solution would be temporary.

The premises support THAT conclusion. And that's it.

During timed, I was on hunt mode and saw E and chose it.

A) No, that's more so context. Doesn't really play that much of a logical role.

B) No. Tricky, but no. It's not that the problem of overpopulation will persist. The author could think this or not think this. The author could think that the Mars solution is a bad solution, and then think that this other solution would be better and this other solution will solve the problem of overpopulation. You can disagree with a premise and still agree with the conclusion. That's what this answer choice tries to trick you on, that if you disagree with the premise then you also disagree with the conclusion, which is not the case. Additionally, "due to the continuing growth" is off. The author says "if it does" not that it actually will.

C) No, that is a premise that supports the conclusion.

D) Nope.

E) Yes. Perfect. Glad my overthinking didn't happen during timed. I think I realized what the right answer was because I saw how the premises supported this conclusion.

Because I knew what my prephrase was, I bypassed B easily. Prephrases are important.

Hi,

I'll try my best at explaining from my understanding!

I think you're conflating "popularity" with "pervasive."

P1: Political Utility --> determines POPULARITY

P2: "Society as governed by head" is PERVASIVE

Just because something is pervasive doesn't mean that something is popular. So the argument is not confusing necessary for sufficient because it never said that "Society as body governed by head" metaphor was popular--just that it was pervasive.

One flaw the argument commits is that it assumes that just because "Society as body governed by head" metaphor is pervasive (premise), it has to promote greater acceptance of authoritarian repression than other metaphors, like likening society to a family (conclusion). It makes the jump from pervasive to all of a sudden promoting greater acceptance of authoritarian repression.

The other thing the argument assumes is that other metaphors, such as likening society to a family, are not also pervasive. If the family metaphor was pervasive, then the critic's premise is irrelevant to the conclusion now. AC A flushes out this assumption.

If this were a necessary assumption question, then the answer would be something like "likening society to a family metaphor is not as pervasive as the society as governed by head metaphor"

I hope that helps!

P1 Low: Pathogen/ Old Belief

P1 High: Pathogens can infect only if the agent is able to reproduce. It was widely believed until recently that agents responsible for infection reproduced by genetic material and that all pathogens contain genetic material in their cellular structure.

Note: During timed I didn't push back the "this." Always always always push back referential phrasing. "This" = If a pathogen infects ---> reproduce in host organism. Always make note of conditional logic in RC. At least highlight it. The passage cares about it. During timed, I didn't realize that a lot of the understanding hinges on the idea of reproduction. Reproduction is huge. Reproduction is the necessary condition. You have to be able to understand the larger ideas. You don't have to remember every detail, but you have to read to understand.

Structure: Old Belief

Sneak Peak: We will probably get something overturning this old belief in the next paragraphs

P2 Low: Challenge (CJD)

P2 High: The assumption that all pathogens contain genetic material in their cellular structure has been challenged by the pathogen, prion which does not have nucleic acid, that causes CJD.

Structure: Unconforming evidence/phenomenon that challenges an old belief. Contradiction.

P3 Low: Process

P3 High: Prions reproduce through a cascade reaction.

Note: We talk about prion reproduction because reproduction was mentioned in P1. That was such a huge part that I missed in p1. Reproduction is paramount to infections. So P3 talks about prions reproduce to show/prove how it's a pathogen and causes infection. I took "the body does not produce an immune response" as that they don't have an immunity. I also didn't make note of the "in the absence of" and I just hyper-focused on "CJD is inevitably fatal."

Structure; Prion Reproduction

P4 Low: Impact

P4 High: Prions link to CJD seems to support the idea that prions are an entirely different new class of pathogens. This may reveal that a similar protein process is relevant to other neurological conditions, though this needs to be explored more.

Structure: Talks about the impact of this new discovery.

Main Point: Prions, a new class of pathogens, challenges the old belief that all pathogens require genetic material.

Organization: Old hypothesis, new evidence, Process/how/explanation of new evidence, impact of new evidence/new hypothesis

Tone: Informative

Purpose: To show how a new discovery could overturn an old belief

POV: Author, old belief