I'm not entirely sold on the reasonability of the assumption for C (what if it's nothing worse than a cold?) but I am convinced that the assumption required for C is more reasonable than the assumption required for A (which I initially fell for).

I just don't see it that way. I mean, obviously we agree that the main thing is to write a clear and effective passage, but that first passage uses several phrases that I think hinder rather than help that aim. Thanks for your perspective though.

Ya, I honestly found those bits of vocab to be in poor taste. It's hard to imagine a Law School admissions officer reading 'stultifying miasma' and doing anything other than rolling their eyes. Same with the waxing poetic on latin etymology. I'd focus instead on precise, efficient words, not necessarily ten dollar ones.

Is there any downside to writing this after the test (just a day or two afterwards)? I understand that LSAC won’t release my score until I've written it, but is there anything besides that which I should consider?

I see what you mean, though I do think the salient point comes through well in this explanation: that the correct answer needs to affirm that only happiness is intrinsically valuable. All of the answer choices are mumbo-jumbo-word-salad, and so a more thorough breakdown of what makes each of them distinctly wrong might risk getting too into the weeds, when really that misses the point. So I'm not sure if a more detailed breakdown is really necessary here. That's not to detract from the point your making, but only to say that there is something to be gained from this explanation video.

Me when I fall for the oldest trick in the book:

:(

I had trouble with E, maybe someone can explain to me what's wrong with my thinking:

The word "proportion" tripped me up. Because say last year there were 100 violent crimes, and the news reported on 50% of them (that's the proportion), so they reported on 50 total. Now say there were only 10 violent crimes this year, and the news nearly doubled the proportion of reporting, so they reported on 90% of them (so 9 in all).

Doesn't this answer choice not work? Because even if the news media nearly doubles their coverage, depending on how steep the drop in crime was, the media coverage can't fully explain the phenomenon.

Am I missing something?

#help

I finished the curriculum a while back, but I've returned to this section because my analytics show that MSS questions are a weak point for me. Something that has really helped during my review is to recall that you cannot treat MSS questions like Must Be True questions---you can't just ask "Okay, so what makes this answer choice wrong?" You can do that in MBT, but assumptions are allowed in MSS, and so the question you have to ask is "What assumptions do I have to make in order for the answer choice to be correct?" The way to come to the right answer is by weighing which choice requires the fewest and most reasonable assumptions---not by looking for a perfect fit. To ask the wrong question can lead to square pegs and round holes.

Ya, I agree, the answer choice requires several (not entirely reasonable) assumptions. Still, though, those assumptions might be fewer and more reasonable than those that the other answer choices demand. Most Strongly Supported questions are hard lol

Ahh so obvious once you watch the explanation, but was I ever stuck on this beforehand!

This one is brutal lol

I saw someone point out in another comment section that in the 'Review Results' section for all of the You Trys, there is a link to an explanation from the V1 curriculum. These are much shorter, the one for this question is 6 minutes.

He means that it doesn't mischaracterize the stimulus---it is accurate insofar as we consider only the basic shape of the stim. So answer choice A, for example, is descriptively accurate because it is technically accurate: the application does, in fact, fail to establish whether Wilton was given an opportunity to repair the brakes. The problem with it, though, is that it doesn't undermine the argument.

I agree. I managed to get this one pretty quickly just by asking what would happen if each answer choice were not assumed. Definitely taught me the value of this strategy.

So far so good

I'll try!

Let's break it down. So the prompt gives us several pieces of information:

1. "Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage." This establishes the context.

2. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops.

3. But halophytes can be irrigated with seawater, whereas conventional crops cannot.

4. Pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells.

From these premises, the author concludes: Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

But if you're like me, that conclusion doesn't totally follow the premises. If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness? The author tells us that seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions, but from the information that he's given us, I can't really tell why.

This is where the right answer to question comes in, answer choice E. It bolsters the relationship of support---it strengths the argument.

It says: Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

In other words, when I ask "If halophytes yields are smaller, doesn't that pose a problem to its cost-effectiveness?" answer choice E comes in and says, "No, that doesn't pose a problem, because even though the yields are small, the thing that is really costly is pumping water for irrigation. If we can avoid pumping water from wells and use saltwater instead, then that alone will make it more cost-effective."

Hopefully this helps!

Be careful not to confuse weakening and strengthening questions. While answering this question I had to stop myself from getting confused---I think that's an easy mistake to make at this point in the course, especially since we're going back and forth between the two, so be sure to really read the question and think about what it's asking before you answer.

If you do that, I think you'll see that answers like D weakens the conclusion, not strengthen it.

D says: Sewage sludge that contains high concentrations of heavy metals almost always contains significant concentrations of antibiotics.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that if I'm a bacteria who lives in sewage sludge, then I am surrounded by a lot of two things: heavy metals and antibiotics. Because I'm surrounded by these two things, it stands to reason that I'll develop a resistance to both of them simultaneously.

This explicitly refutes the conclusion drawn by the microbiologist. She concludes that because bacteria who live in sludge are surrounded by heavy metal, and they somehow have a resistance to both heavy metals and antibiotics, it must be that the exposure to heavy metals causes the resistance to antibiotics.

Looking at D again, we can see that it pretty clearly undermines the microbiologist's conclusion. D says, "No, it's not that exposure heavy metal causes resistance to antibiotics. It's only that the bacteria are being exposed to heavy metals AND antibiotics! That's why the bacteria are resistant to both."

Again, I think this isn't so confusing once you break it down. But in the moment, when different sorts of questions are being thrown at it left, right, and centre, it's easy to get your wires crossed.

I hope this helps!

Just put it another way, try disregarding the rest of the premises to see how C actually supports the conclusion.

Say I told you that "Stretching before jogging does not help to prevent injuries."

And you say, "Oh, that's surprising. Why is that?"

And I say, "Well, most jogging injuries result from falls, collisions, and other mishaps on which the flexibility resulting from stretching would have little if any effect.

Put this way, we can see C actually justifies the conclusion.

Use the Blind Review function. Answer with your intuition, and then go through with the Blind Review to be sure your answer was correct. In the v1 of the Core Curriculum, there's an entire section on how to utilize the Blind Review, I definitely recommend checking it out!

I try to answer them as quickly as possible (so in this case, I scanned the answers, decided B was correct, and chose it without much more thought). Then I use the Blind Review to go through and affirm my answer---that's when I take the time to really be certain that my gut was right. I try, to the best of my ability, to be sure what makes the answer right and what makes the others wrong. This has been useful for improving my speed because usually my gut is right, and so this method has taught me to trust it more than I might otherwise.

I agree. Or at least a toggle option would be nice.

Check out the v1 of the Core Curriculum, there's an entire section on how to best utilize the Blind Review, and it covers this exact question (among others) in detail.

Yes, you've got it right with the X and Y. As I progress through this course, though, I've found it more useful to say this:

To say one is X is sufficient to conclude that one is Y.

Here's what I mean:

If something is a cat, then is it is necessarily a mammal.

Because of that fact, if I tell you something is a cat, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that it is also mammal.

Remember, sufficiency and necessity are relationship, and so it makes sense that they are connected in this way.

But what we cannot conclude that to be a mammal necessarily means to be a cat.

So let's take this statement again:

When zombies attack New York City, the real estate market will crash.

"If zombies attack New York City" is the sufficient condition and "the real estate market will crash" is the necessary condition.

In this case, if zombies have attacked New York City, then the real estate market will necessarily crash.

Because of that fact, if I tell you the zombies have attacked New York City, that is sufficient information for you to conclude that the real estate market will crash.

But that's all we know. Surely other things could cause the real estate market will crash. A global pandemic, for instance, or an alien invasion, or all kinds of other catastrophes. In those cases, the real estate market might crash, but it would have nothing to do with a zombie attack.

We cannot conclude that a real estate market crash necessarily means there has been a zombie invasion.

I hope this helps!

It becomes clear in later lessons that the 'sharp upper boundary' refers to something like 'all.' It is clear that this is different than vagueness. Still, though, it might be worth some clarification earlier on so as to avoid the apparent contradiction.

#feedback

In the full diagram, it says that ambiguous quantifiers have "sharp upper and lower boundaries." But in the next lesson (ie. lesson 3) it says that the ambiguous quantifier, 'Some,' "does not have an upper boundary."

This seems to me like either an error or improperly explained.