I feel for Q12 AC (D) one could make the argument that author B would disagree, since they do seem to think that most people wouldn't enjoy publicly funded art, so it seems there's some support for the idea that the author would disagree that publicly funded art would guarantee better art. Similar to AC A, I think it's only "implied".

I think what makes D wrong is that there really aren't any disputants discussed in length, with only the critics briefly mentioned being possible "disputants". The author does assess their points made, but is this really the point and purpose of the passage for the author? The author is trying to show how the Supreme Court has been beneficial in some ways for Native Americans, all things considered. The mentioning of the critics is simply a means for reaching that goal.

Watch the passage reading video. He reads the first passage and then goes to questions, then the second passage in the "questions" video

I think B is also wrong because the stimulus states when so and so such as rain happens and causes the drought, not that if the phenomena occurs then the drought will occur, with its subsequent business consequences.

Trying saying AC E five times really fast

TLDR; AC D is right because it shuts down a possible contributing factor that might make one reconsider whether the explanation provided in the stimulus provides sufficient reasoning to explain the legal phenomena. Namely, one cannot say "maybe those accused of street crimes actually committed those crimes more frequently than those accused of higher lucrative crimes".

Question 25 really shows the actual wackiness of the theory lol

Nice explanation.

Parallel argument: Contrary to popular opinion, it can be said that diet soda does not in fact help with weight loss, as can be seen by the fact that most consumers of such beverages are typically overweight, whereas non-consumers are typically of a healthier weight.

"a huge boner for homer" line made me chuckle lol

I think another issue with AC D is that it refers to customers, not the entire bill itself.

It's comforting knowing and being reminded of the fact that even someone like JY struggles with/isn't completely confident with an understanding of a passage at times

I feel like the tricks you suggest boil down in part to just turning abstract terms and ideas into pictures of empirical things we can readily visualize in our head.

Assumptions I see before seeing the rest of the video:

1) Mr Fat Cat has the strength to topple over the trash can

2) Mr Fat Cat eats or is at least not allergic to salmon (to a deathly extent)

3) Mr Fat Cat does not typically lick his paws for other reasons/situations

This has got to be the wackiest LR question I've ever done lol

Well, we don't know if this protein build up is even a cause of Alzheimer's or if it is the other way around.

I think the TLDR flaw here is "your argument is wrong/bad, therefore the opposite conclusion is true", as listed on the site's 21 flaws.

Man that angry face drawing cracked me up lol

I think what makes a question like 14 hard, especially with regard to AC A for me at least, is that it would seem reasonable to think that the author of passage A would be more interested in the logical implications of evolutionary psychology.

I also would like to know this #help

It's always interesting to consider some of the harder questions the writers could have made but didn't. I feel a question regarding what both authors would agree with could have had an AC where it stated something along the lines of the idea that non-native species can cause lamentable damage to ecosystems, which could have tripped up some people if they didn't remember that the author of passage B offered some exceptions.

Man they really love breaking out Thesaurus to amp up difficult questions lol

I think a great tip before taking any LSAT test is to look at 7sage's 21 common argument flaws just before the,. Really helps just re-calibrate and remember flaws and be more attentive.

I thought 26.A) is wrong because it describes the actual finite number increasing, but the author discussed the proportion, and the proportion could technically rise even if the pie itself gets smaller, if I understand correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong. #help

I think what kinda kills most people in this passage is that idea of the glass transition temperature and the end of paragraph 1.