How does the "as the Mendels claim" not factor in here? Even with A, the argument doesn't hold to me because you can just say "The Mendel's claim was incorrect". I don't think this would be denying a premise that singular clause says nothing about whether the claim is actually correct. #help

24 is a hard question because you have to not only parse that from the one line that mentions them that they opposed reform, but then make the further jump to the idea that they can be grouped in as proponents of the "bizarre", "mechanical", and "irrational" legal principles of evidence. That second jump, at least in my experience, is rare for these types of questions so I guess I wasn't expecting it.

I didn't pick D here because it seemed like there was a jump between saying journalists and news reports. I guess news reports are commonly conducted by journalists, but can't news reports be government findings/press releases, statistical data reported by economists, etc. In this context, then they full well could have an effect on people's beliefs about the economy.

I didn't like E either, but couldn't quite think of a concrete objection to it in timed conditions. But even JY's explanation isn't that convincing, cause sure the journalists only say they don't need to be concerned with the effects of their work, but this seems to work in tandem with the last premise that says citizens don't even consider journalistic work in matters that they don't have any direct experience in, which I think is reasonable to say that these matters don't affect their well-being. So even if we say it doesn't affect their work, it can be argued that it doesn't really affect citizens' well-beings so why would they have to be deeply concerned about their works' effects on citizens. (It even says deeply concerned, rather than just concerned, so I feel like that would soften the provable burden even more)

The attractiveness of A and the obscurity of E are prime kobe and shaq on this question

My gripe with this question is that Tyne's argument's referral to natural value seems to be a valid enough counterpoint to Marisa's conclusion. This doesn't indicate to me that he misinterpreted what she meant by value, but rather there is another value that is more relevant here, especially since he's disagreeing with her.

Because of this, I thought the misinterpretation had to do with the reasoning behind why its prohibitive (reduced property value versus activists ploy or smtg like that). I wasn't confident in this reasoning, but I just didn't see any issue with how he used the word value.

Anyone have reasoning to jump over this reasoning hurdle?

I feel like so many people pick E over B on Q26 because the passage doesn't seem to be describing Gilman's role in the intellectual controversy. It seems like the controversy is just context to lay groundwork for the different sides of the debate, then they attribute Gilman to one side and flesh out her theory (and implicitly demonstrate how it matches the theory the passage attributes to her). However, I'm hardpressed to see how just presenting her theory demonstrates her "role" in the controversy, especially since after Gilman is introduced there's like no mention of the other theory. After hearing JY's explanation for E, it makes sense how its bad, but B doesn't seem very good either.

I kinda feel like JY's explanation misses the mark a bit here. The conclusion is about the subsequent instructions being effective. We know in order to be effective, it must be repeated many times. So in order for the subsequent instructions to be effective, they must be repeated many times. However, the stimulus says that it only appears to the subject as if the subsequent instructions have been repeated many times. If it only appears this way, then they were not actually repeated many times. This fails the necessary condition to be effective, yet the conclusion still concludes the subsequent instructions are effective. JY's focus on the initial instructions is misleading here, I don't think that's where the flaw lies; we don't really know that the initial command has or has not been repeated many times. I could be wrong, but this reasoning is how I deduced A. #feedback

With 22 I assumed that the more you split species up, the more species you get with less and less members. So I assumed this is what would lead to the greater number of species that are endangered, since there are more species with less numbers. But I can see how this may be an unreasonable assumption

Idk if Lawhub changed with the new test format in the way it shows "except", but 7sage's new preptests all show except as italicized rather than bolded or in all caps. I understand if this is how its shown on Lawhub now, but if its not, why change it to italicized from bolded and all caps?? Got this question wrong cause of it since the question stem was one line with the except at the end... #feedback

I made a last second switch to D on this question unfortunately, but what made me switch isn't addressed in the explanation. Yes the conclusion does state that they want to make it only really difficult. But the reasoning behind this law is because they can't afford any reduction in the amount of capital invested into the country. We're meant to take the wording literally, so I took this as meaning that in order to sustain the economy, they require no reduction in capital. D points out that with this law, they may end up losing capital anyways, so it sustain the economy as it claims in the conclusion. I switched off from B because I assumed that there was an assumption being made that we should care about other countries not investing. What if all we need is to keep the money that is already present? #help

Tbh the drop in score going from untimed and timed seems reasonable. I'd say 50% of the difficulty is the time constraint, so a 150 score with a "50% easier" test means that you're definitely missing some fundamentals that you should work on. Don't be afraid of practicing with the time constraint cause imo you're just building another obstacle for yourself; instead of working on timing while learning the content, you're learning the content, and then you're going to have to adapt what you've learned to time constraints which means you'll have to undo bad untimed habits that don't work under timed conditions (drawing things out, etc.) while also learning new good habits (skipping q's, etc.). This is why blind review is a thing; so you can practice with a time constraint, and without one, to really see where you're conceptual gaps are.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sr" but if you mean you're registered for the test in september, I would highly suggest thinking about rescheduling to at least october. Going into the test with only having 2 weeks of timed practice under your belt without really being a natural at the test, it will be very difficult to get a score you want. I think bare minimum is timed sections throughout your studying time and some PTs, but ideally you start with timed sections, then start "drilling" PTs. I don't mean to scare you but the time constraint isn't really negotiable with this test and being so close to your test, you're only hurting yourself by not testing/practicing with it.

That last question should be illegal

But if you negate E, to something like "some pricing practices that do not result in unreasonable prices are not acceptable", this doesn't really wreck the argument. What if predatory pricing is one of the pricing practices that don't result in unreasonable prices and is acceptable? Isn't the conclusion fully consistent with the negated version of E? Unless I'm missing something abt the negations #help

The mention of Vulcan really messed me up in the second paragraph of B. Was Vulcan just entirely relevant to the ideas of positive or negative evidence? Or was Vulcan just positive evidence that was never found? I operated through the questions thinking the absence of Vulcan was negative evidence, so that tripped me up for some of the questions. #help

For the MP question, I ruled out B because it implies that wampum was originally used as a form of communication, but isn't this factually inaccurate? Didn't it originate as an item with religious significance, then evolve into a form of communication?? #help

I don't think JY puts the correct emphasis on what's wrong about B. The answer choice says "the city", not "a city", which means that its not saying that in general, it's reasonable for any city to encourage establishment of manufacturing plants. What's really wrong about B, which JY does kinda touch on, is that it generalizes the type of manufacturing plants. We only know automobile plants would be reasonable. So how about a textile plant? We don't know. So B saying manufacture plants in general is unsupported. Figured I'd leave this here since I was hoping to confirm my reasoning using the explanation, but tbh I think the reason I posit^ is more accurate than JY's for B.

I think this may be the first question I've seen where two wrong answers were selected more than the right answers lmao

Explanation for questions like this would greatly benefit from trying to map the wrong ACs onto the stimulus and seeing where specifically they go wrong (namely B and E). JY's explanation here hinges on you perceiving the flaw correctly before getting into the answer choices, and although that is the ideal strategy, it may not be feasible for everyone under timed conditions even if you are scoring high. Part of the issue with these questions is the abstraction so parsing out the answer choices that may be harder to map like E would make this a much better explanation. #feedback

I chose C, but in blind review, I was unsure because how do we know that the babies returning to their reef are all one species. What if the species of shrimp was already diverse in each reef and so different species of shrimp return to the same reef and breed with one another, this wouldn't explain the genetic similarity then. Seems like a pretty big assumption to say the reefs are species specific, but still stuck with C cause nothing else seemed right. #help

Am I tripping or does E not mean that the older kids themselves were nearsighted, not that they were nearsighted as infants? It's so ambiguous

Got this one wrong cause I was so flustered by the jargon, my brain couldn't compute the more subtle representativeness flaw at play. But after hearing JY's explanation it makes sense, and I'd even say that there's two levels/chances you could get this right on.

Like JY said, the two flaws at play are a comparison flaw and a representativeness flaw, but the comparison flaw is much easier to comprehend I'd say. Thus, on a high resolution understanding of the stimulus where you identify both flaws, you would likely go through the reasoning JY goes through in the video and end up with C. However, on a low-res understanding of just the comparison flaw at play, you may see that C is (in a way) a cookie-cutter way of addressing a comparison flaw in that it eliminates a potential factor to a bad comparison. So even if you have trouble eliminating D and E like I did, there's a second hope that you may see this cookie cutter trait of E.

For question 5, how is the last sentence "carrying an implication"? In both timed condition and blind review, I just couldn't map it onto B and that left me eliminating all of the answers. #help

I would love to see how many more people would have got this right if it was pre-2005. Just that being a possibility goes to show the questionable efficacy of this question.

I eliminated E upon seeing 50% because I didn't see the "combined" in the stimulus or at least I forgot about it when moving to the answer choices. I though B and E were trying to fool me by equating "significantly more" with most, since a common flaw they use is that they'll equate having the most out of certain groups to be having the most out of the total amount. In reality it was doing the complete opposite...

Question 19 option E is discouraging to say the least considering how mappable it is to the passage. However, despite choosing it, I tried to make sense of it and think I have a way to eliminate it (given, if this is what the writers intended, it's cruel under timed conditions).

Rather than Author B taking an explicit stance for or against the research conclusions he cites, like how A does, Author B takes a milder stance by of just rejecting past research conclusions posited (rather than offering his own explanation. Since there is nothing in the question that would assert the specific position Author B would be taking, there is a lot of flexibility in interpreting what his position actually is. I think LSAC is trying to prey on our intuition that when we are presented with conflicting views, we assume those views are direct opposites of one another (and thus, have parallel goals). Sure in some aspects A and B are opposite; however, as we've seen with comparative passages, the passages don't have to respond to one another at all. If we look at B independently, we can say that he doesn't take an explicit stance on the research questions posed by the research he cites, however he does take the position that the interpretations/approaches of said research are not sufficient or even necessary to answer such questions. The research questions bit in the AC would perhaps be rendered moot under this interpretation since B takes the position that those research questions still are unsettled, rather than trying to answer the questions themselves. Sorry for the long explanation, and this may very well be incoherent/wrong, but I'm just trying to make sense of it myself lol