I am doing really good... I am scared that this is just the calm before the storm

I eliminated D because the line about what the lawyers thought about the textbooks is the opposing view, and since the question asks about what the author would believe, then the lawyers' belief is not really relevant. I read this as two people really debating, and imagine the opposition bringing up this claim during a debate. We don't know if the author truly believes it. Probably not the best method but it worked in this case lol.

Who came up with this argument? An oligarch (rhymes with pesos) that claims his income is only 80k a year? Lol.

Got it right but AT WHAT COST

I have gotten every question right, but I am struggling with doing shallow dip so it's taking me 5 minutes per answer and that's just not going to cut it.

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

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.

I am balding chat

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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