Which reading comp is real?

Thank you very much!

I have a question about Answer choice E. Instead of saying "certain forms of exercise", if it specifies for jogging, stretching beforehand can reduce the severity of injuries, would it be a legitimate choice? The first thing struck me in this question is that relying on the number of injuries might be odd, because if stretching can alleviate the severity of injuries, that still proves its usefulness, which in turn weakens the argument.

In regard to question 15, the explanatory role refers to author's position that recent research reveals that extended intense training explains the superior performance of some people, as opposed to the previously invoked notion of innate ability. The last paragraph is really where author jumps out and punch other side on the face, giving opinion on one implication of the research cited in the passage - predictive role. JY nailed it.

I was actually thinking about another flaw, which made me choose E over C. I'm aware that C is superior to E in terms of its logical structure. However, the question stimulus is also flawed in that the logical negation of "sound" is not necessarily "far off the mark". In the same vein, in E, "not worth the investment" does not equal "no improvement on the old". In my opinion, E match the flaw with the question stimulus perfectly on this front whereas in C, "failed to sell its subsidiaries" does not account for the same flaw. Any help will be appreciated.

Good catch of Answer Choice E in Question 17. Pretty ironic for the LSAC.

The 62 was designed in a way to drive me nuts. Later on, I realized that I was in a panic condition and fell in most of the traps whereas during reviews I was able to figure out where the mistakes were.

I have a different point of view about Answer choice B. I think it is wrong because it says the harbor is the place where lobsters are caught so that we don't care the lobsters living in the open sea. In the same vein, we don't care about the comparison of life expectancy made between lobsters living in different places. The reason is that we don't catch lobsters in the open see but in the industrial harbor.

I'm here to tell the truth which might hurt but in a good way. Finishing up all the 7sage lessons isn't your goal. Instead, how much have you internalized from the lessons? You might have noticed listening to the explanations makes a lot of sense after all, but it's a different story when you actually do the question yourself. Also, doing timed prep tests puts pressure on you, so you have to get used to it. Sometime, you have to skip questions and live with a degree of certainty in order to have a shot for the harder questions. Ask yourself why you did the questions wrong. Don't set a goal of finishing some problem sets or lessons on a day. Learn from it so you won't make the same mistake again.

I actually chose A the first time and I realized how stupid that was after my blind review. If you take the literal meaning of "programmatic", then you would fall into the trap of "government programs". Darn it.

Really appreciate the quantitative example you give in the explanation! I try to put the logic into words as what follows: the diagnosis of a disease has two answers, you either have it or not. A doctor can achieve 100% accuracy in terms of which patient is sick if he dictates that everyone is so. In contrast, we need to know that how accurate his decision is with respect to the fact that how many patients do not have the disease.

The way I tell B apart is that it says something about society in general. However, the argument is about urban society in particular, which indicates that there is a shift in scope. That's why B is wrong. Does this kind of reasoning hold?

I say this question can be either a necessary or sufficient assumption, cause the lacking premise fills the gap of this argument. What do you guys think?

Hi JY, I found myself really confused in trying to achieve a high accuracy in reading comprehensions. I am currently reviewing all the old ones that I have completed. By comparisons, I found that I weirdly made different mistakes during the first time and the second time of doing the same section. However, reading does not seem to be the problem because I feel I have a very good grasp of the passage after reading it. All too often, I believe that I was thrown off balance by the subtleties and nuances in the question. I find it hard to discern trap answers from the right ones. Please help!