@soos I am late, but basically this is your typical causal reasoning where they give you a correlation and then conclude that it equals causation. We know that heart rate goes up in both groups, and the stimulus concludes that it must be the emotion inhibition that's causing the heart rate to go up. A is basically saying "what if just the fact that the situation is emotional is what makes the nonrepressor's heart rate go up?" If you negate this, the argument falls apart because now we don't know if it's truly the act of inhibiting the emotions what causes the heart rate in both groups to go up.

@remgrandt Right, the answer choice is describing a correlation between the worms and the thin layer and then concluding that the worms are the cause of the thin layer which causes the ferns disappearance.

E is saying that the assumption the argument is making is that the worms are not there because the layer is already thin. If you take the "not" out of the sentence the argument falls apart because that would mean that the worms are not causing the thin layer, they are just there because the layer was already thin.

I am so mad at myself, I got this wrong because I didn't read the question stem correctly.

Honestly, fuck this.

All I did for this question was choose A because if all of the statements are true then investment is not decreasing and A says it is, so it must be false. Maybe not the best way to solve this but it worked.

It would be helpful if some of these explanations were taken down and replaced with ones that explained why the answer choices are wrong, instead of "what what... this is a terrible answer choice". We pay $100+ dollars a month for this service. The least y'all can do is go into more detailed explanations. This happens a lot and it feels like I am getting an explanation from some dude who happened to get a 180 instead of an actual instructor. #feedback

whoever wrote this question needs to get their ass beat

I am confused because I thought the conflict was that erosive forces wear the mountains down, yet the highest mountain ranges are found in places with the most prevalent erosive forces. In other words, the mountains should be significantly worn down, but they are not, which is what led me to pick D.

Honestly tired of the mental gymnastics. We are told not to make bold assumptions but then get the wrong answer from not making them. I am tired chat.

OHH THIS IS AN AGREE QUESTION NOT DISAGREE OMG

STOP. TREATING. SA QUESTIONS. AS. YOU. DO. NA QUESTIONS !!!!! I AM GOING TO TATTOO THIS INSIDE MY EYELIDS.

Nah, I get it's the LSAT, so you are supposed to do mental gymnastics to make it make sense in LSAT world. I usually just move on, but the reason why E is wrong does not make any sense at all and this is the hill I am choosing to die on.

"does not depend in any way on innate talents of individuals" that's what seems to disqualify this answer choice. JY points to the statement that "intense training + talent COMMON TO ALL REASONABLY COMPETENT PERFORMERS" is what makes this answer choice incorrect and that we have "read carefully in order to get it". He says that the passage says you need to have some talent. True, but the AC E is talking about INNATE TALENT not SOME TALENT. But, ok, well let's go back to the first paragraph where the notion of "innate talent" is first introduced. We are told that some people believe that innate talent must be invoked to account for the HIGHEST level of performance. The next sentence goes on to describe the data that the psychologists use to support this view; this data concerns the heritability of these "innate abilities". The passage goes on to argue against "innate talent" and offers multiple other explanations for exceptional performance.

So, HOW are we supposed to magically deduce that "that level of talent COMMON TO ALL reasonably COMPETENT performers" refers in some way to innate talent? The passage never argues against the existence of mere "talent", it argues against the existence of talent that you are BORN with which makes you have an outstanding performance in a particular field. In what world would this apply to ALL reasonably competent performers? I think it's safer to infer that the passage actually subtly differentiates innate talent from talent common to all reasonably competent performers.

I understand how "in any way" takes support away from this answer choice because of the last line which labels motivational factors as "more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance than is innate talent" which would make an scenario where "exceptional skill does not depend in any way on innate talents" way too strong of a statement when we just know that they are less likely to be a predictor.

I also understand how "may suffice to account for this difference" introduces sufficiency not necessity and how A can be inferred from this. I just don't think that the mention and validation of normal plain old talent in the last paragraph serves as a clue for the existence of INNATE talent.

I might just be reading too much into it, I am just confused by JY's reasoning behind common talent vs. innate talent.

I had to approach this question in a different way than usual. Usually, I would look for an answer that explained why the babies still got sick. But after going over the answer choices and realizing none of them work, I had to go back and re-consider what I am trying to explain. In this case, I went back to the answer choices to look for an answer that explained WHY the doctors recommended the diet even though the babies still got sick. The only answer choice that truly explains this is C.

Chat, my geometry teacher used to make me go to tutoring after school because I was about to fail. Wth is this :((

@AshlePerez Thank you! This one is super tricky.

I am balding chat

BUT WHEN DO I KNOW WHEN TO GET OUT OF BIZARRE WORLD AND APPLY NORMAL WORLD UNDERSTANDING

@MJthelawya I am still struggling lol

This explanation is trash. I truly don't know how else to put it.

@EmoryMcDowell you're welcome! the same thing happened to me haha

@allyldh Yes! Could not have said it better. If you use the passage, you will just end up picking an answer that's supported by the passage which does not work in this case lol.

16/16 but I need to work on time.

I think what makes this whole passage so confusing is that we are told that glass flowing downwards is a myth, and then all the questions have something to do with glass actually flowing downwards lol. Still did fine but that's what had me so confused.

12/13

@RuthOlvera I am also Latin American and understood right off the bat too