I find this passage very frustrating. I feel that the author's "main point," as decided by my betters, is hardly emphasized. Sure, experts think about aggregate risk; sure, policymakers should try to save as many lives as possible; but the author keeps referring to nebulous non-conclusions like, "regulatory policy should be guided by a better understanding of the factors that underlie judgments about voluntariness" and "[Policymakers should focus on] identifying the more specific considerations for which notions of voluntariness serve as proxies" which seems to imply that some other unnamed factor should be the focus.

If the author's point is simply the utilitarian "more lives saved is better" then there is no need to look to underpinning proxy judgments or complex interactions related to what people, consider voluntary. It is an irrelevant argument. The whole notion should be dispensed with. By entertaining the concept at length, the author makes the "point," as decided from on-high, difficult to follow if you actually pay attention to anything that is developed in the passage.

It seems as if I just can't get these types of questions. I have no idea how to correct that. I routinely get easier questions wrong that are focused on main point, inference, or perspective. Factually accurate, but incorrect answers are indistinguishable from equally factually correct but attitudinally accurate (and right) answers. I don't know what to do.

D seems to imply that everyone has inadequate personal experience to select a car no matter who they are. There is no conditional situation that triggers the need to get more information, like in the stimulus. On that basis I eliminated that answer.

I don't understand why the split and sequential approaches are done on the same passage. If they were different passages I could compare the use of each method, but since it's the same text with the same questions there is no value once one of the approaches has covered it. It would be nice to use all of the materials to their fullest, but I suppose we are expected to pick one approach and ignore the other.

5/5 and 8/8. I am surprised.

@LiviaLSAT I was going to say the same thing. I don't think this assists me in getting the right answer to actual questions.

Two segments into this topic and I'm getting the message, "Are you imperfect? Then I STRONGLY advise you to give up!" Great, thanks. So helpful.

This is only difficult because Mary (or Jamal) misuses the word "right" the second time. One has a (legal) right, but one does not possess a (moral) right as phrased. A person can be right, or be in the right, or have the right of it, but no normal English-speaker would say, "you have no/a right" to refer to someone's relationship to morality.

I don't get how to apply this. The stems don't seem to be responsible for my wrong answers, but I did poorly on this exercise. I just take each stem in the context of the question and there is no confusion for me about what is being asked. So, what's the matter with me?

I wish I could see the complete question and answer set before I get the explanation, even skipping around the video is unhelpful since they draw all over the materials and make it clear which answer is the right one. Just let me read it first!

I identified this as a support question immediately, so I was looking for support. Instead, this question is asking us to affirm the argument. This is exactly the type of answer we have been taught to disqualify since it just restates the stimulus. I feel as if the strategies I'm learning worked against me.

I think B is very poorly supported, there is simply not enough information to know whether that is relevant. E is supposedly disqualified since there is a presumed difference between "first few" and "several" but the assumption needed to consider first few and several as equivalent is MUCH smaller than the assumption that a difference in relative size is harmful to the argument. I strongly disagree with this one.

Is my work awesome? Am I crushing it? This false encouragement it very annoying.

I might have actually managed to learn something, about 30 hours into the course.

I guess I should give up.

Answering in 47 seconds is impossible if you apply any of the strategies taught here. One might as well guess.

I really wish the time given in the study plan would at least correspond with the length of the video. The study plan claims this is a 2-minute section and the video is 6:49 long. Am I just supposed to ignore the video? This is happening frequently as I go through this study plan.

4 seems to be If A and B and C then D. 5 seems to be If A and B and C and not D then E. There is no way to reduce the complexity.

How could this section be given a length of 3 minutes in the study plan if the video in it is more than 9 minutes long?