Right but the "less competition" exists for any earlier application, I'm just curious what difference the Feb. 1 "priority" deadline makes

Thanks @tl92420280! Which exam/section will we be reviewing? Is it PT35RC?

¶1. great perfume should be taken more seriously than it currently is.

¶2-3. perfume/oil painting have similar materials, processes, and effects on the end-user.

¶4. a possible cause of undervaluation is corporate compromising of fine perfume.

structure: a phenomenon is presented (perfume undervalued), reasons for why the phenomenon is not okay are given (perfume is similar to painting), and a possible cause of the phenomenon is given.

the emphasis/purpose, however, is that perfume should not be undervalued (rather than why it is).

Does "entails" introduce a necessary condition? JY seems to use it verbally in the video to indicate so. #help

Are copyright laws and patent laws subsets of intellectual property laws? #help

Down to join again! Looking forward.

How do we know the "often" of failed computer model predictions applies to computer model predictions in THIS context??

It doesn't seem like a "reasonable assumption" to me to assume that AC B applies to this context.

I could still reasonably assume that AC is consistent with the paradox, and to read it as we do requires us to read the subset of "often" in AC B in a way the LSAT doesn't expect us to for other ACs?? #help

more info:

yeah it "often" occurs, but we don't know how large the set of computer model predictions are, computer model predictions for seismic pulses could be in the subset where the "often" doesn't apply. I don't find my reading "uncharitable" or "unreasonable".

This is super helpful, thank you!!!

@kateliu47 @dimakyure869 PT 65 sounds good to me!

I know there are some methods, such as reading the conclusion first, and then eliminating easy WACs - but for mid-difficult parallel questions, JY has said this is a shortcut/crutch that’s not always reliable, which is true.

So what’s the advanced/high level way to go about mid-difficult parallel questions? Do high 170 scorers read all the ACs, but just process it more quickly?

Scoring in the low 170s, but my strategy for parallel q's is never consistent and I think I've gotten lucky on too many occasions with parallel q's

(A) This is consistent with the argument. (argument would say: yeah! People buy shit for a long time! Modifications help people!)

(B) This downplays the role of the naming as a means of distinguishing. There are other ways of distinguishing! Strengthens the argument's point that consumers have little reason to object to the naming practice.

(C) Translation: The same products are often sold with different names.

- Does not apply to the stimulus. The argument’s “practice” is about different products having the same names. This AC is talking about the same product having different names. This could be problematic for consumers, but the stimulus is arguing about the practice of different products having the same names.

(D) This addresses the assumption: the modifications may be beneficial, but the naming practice may cause people to not receive the benefits.

(E) Ok so we’re given a reason/more details behind the origins of this naming practice, this is consistent with the argument.

Notes/ Lessons:

The argument is concluding that because the naming practice is connected to this awesome thing (improved models that benefit the buyer), this practice isn't bad - there's little reason to be opposed to the naming practice.

AC (D) gives us a reason. (D) shows us that improvements vs knowledge of/implementation of (improvements) are two separate processes. If consumers don't get the improved models (D provides us a reason for that possibility), the practice (even if it is connected with awesome improvements) could be objectionable (have negatives).

Logical structure: this practice is connected to something highly positive, so this practice isn't bad.

- "there is little reason to object to this practice" means that this practice isn't bad.

- the argument assumes that the practice doesn't detract from those great benefits.

Cookie cutter tags: development vs knowledge of/means of implementing (development).

Analogy: I have this awesome vaccine, but its marketed poorly. but the vaccine will help people, so there is little reason to object to the marketing method. Flaw: If the marketing method affects whether the vaccine will help people, there will be a reason to object to the marketing method.

Paragraph 1

Low res: evolutionary psych

High res: evolutionary psych runs into paradox of altruism

Structure: phenomena/paradox

Organization: author tells us what evolutionary psych is, what it believes in, and why this runs into a problem w/ altruism.

Sneak Peek: author is going to resolve the paradox for us by presenting a hypothesis/theory.

Details that stuck out to you?

- Evolutionary psych is different from the theory of evolution (related & associated but distinct terms).

Paragraph 2

Low res: self-propagation

High-res: the genes behind identification and empathy are just trying to help themselves, so provoke you to help others.

Organization: the author describes a hypothesis that resolves the paradox to e-psych, and applies it in an example.

Structure: hypothesis

Hook back: we have posed a hypothesis that resolves the paradox in ¶1.

Sneak Peek: we are probably going to get back around to the more specific question posed in ¶1 about how the genes behind altruism are still around today.

Tone: descriptive

Details that stuck out to you?

- There is a difference between the state of empathy and the genes behind the state of empathy. The state of empathy is when you do want to help others. But the genes behind the state of empathy are driven by their self-survival.

- Author’s tone about this hypothesis is not conclusive. Uses probably (possible likelihood), could have increased, may thus operate

Paragraph 3

Low res: large communities

High res: you continue to help those in your community (because those genes behind altruism have engineered you to help your community/relatives [once upon a time, to help themselves])

Hook back: address the evolution of this gene today question in ¶1.

Organization: author presents a method that those genes in kin-based environments still operate in non-kin based environments (our community used to be all relatives, so we help people in our community).

Tone: descriptive

Details that stuck out to you?

- “May have arisen”

Passage Summary

Topic/Title: altruism in evolutionary-psych

Main Point: altruism evolved because the genes behind altruism wanted to self-propagate by helping relatives.

AA: supports this hypothesis ("answer probably lies")

Viewpoints: evolutionary psych, author’s

Cookie Cutter: phenomena/paradox and hypothesis

Primary Purpose: the author is trying to show us how a paradox can be resolved and keep e-psych consistent

Author’s tone: Descriptive, qualified/hedged- persuasive ("the answer probably lies").

Organization: author presents a theory, a paradox that the theory runs into, and then a hypothesis that resolves the paradox for the theory.

Why AC A is correct:

Premise: strong verbal skills causes more reading

Anticipate: so the correlation between reading and verbal skills [great! “Habitual readers tend to be verbally skilled”] does not prove that reading raises verbal skills [“reading produces verbal skill”].

Note: the ordering of the premise/conclusion (+phenomena) doesn't matter, so long as they match.

AC E's problems:

Not Parallel: The first clause in this sentence is supposed to be our conclusion, but it already doesn’t match. We shouldn’t be saying that two diseases share one thing, we should be saying that two diseases are correlated [and then something about how disease A does not cause disease B]. They also gave us a premise that doesn't match up: it should say that disease B causes disease A

AC B's problems:

Not Parallel: This isn’t saying A causes B, this is saying C causes A and B.

Analogy of the argument: C causes A and B, so if someone is good at A and not B, it doesn’t mean that they lack the capacity (C). Solid argument, just not parallel.

Another point about this reasoning structure as a whole: this is just a correlation causation argument (A corr B, A causes B) with soft water being used as a proxy for low magnesium (A).

Why AC E is correct:

The treatments for these illnesses are the cause of low magnesium, not the illnesses. This handily weakens the assumption that low magnesium increases risk (and therefore the argument that soft water will increase risk). Low magnesium is simply a byproduct of the treatment.

Restatement of issues w/ AC D:

Issue 1 (Reasoning Issue): So increasing your magnesium (we can assume to be high magnesium) is also bad for you. That is unexpected but consistent with the facts of our argument. So low magnesium and high magnesium are both bad for you, that doesn’t touch our argument’s claim about low magnesium. It actually makes a lot of sense that only normal levels of magnesium would be okay (like having too little or too much vitamin A is bad for you).

Issue 2: many medicines could indicate at least one. So this leaves room for the possibility that magnesium supplements would only inhibit the effectiveness of little-used medicines. Enough to eliminate the AC.

AC D's problems restated:

Anticipate: we need the conclusion (tallness does not improve performance) [which we got! “Decisive advantage” is good enough], and the premise (because high performance actually causes tallness) [NOPE, we got: tallness causes more playtime (which we can assume.. causes high performance)]. This has not flipped the causal arrow around, it still has tallness leading to better performance (just with an intermediary: more practice time)

AC C's problems:

Premise: friends style [B] causes/influences individual style [A]

Anticipate: the correlation between individual style [A] and friends [B] style [phenomena] does not prove that individual style [A] causes/influences friends style [B]. What didn't match: both the phenomena and the conclusion about the phenomena [we got a statement about preference instead]

Why AC B is incorrect:

Issue: Translation: Magnesium is a necessary condition of preventing a possible increase in blood pressure. OK, so that makes low magnesium seem even worse (because it’s not as good at preventing this one avenue of increasing blood pressure). Reasoning impact on the argument: Strengthens the causal relationship between low magnesium and high blood pressure / heart illnesses.

I wasn't sure why JY eliminated it because of "sodium". I was willing to live with the new information introduced, as a possible means of elevating heart problems.

Why AC A is incorrect:

Translation: Low magnesium is common, even in the G20. Issue: This is a point about the frequency of low magnesium. We’re talking about whether low magnesium has this bad effect.

AC (C)'s problems:

What (C) is trying to do: present an alternative third cause of the correlation between low magnesium and these illnesses (old people just have weaker bodies, so they are more prone to the illness and happen to have low magnesium).

Issue 1: But this AC implies old people have high magnesium (rather than low magnesium).

Issue 2: We would also have the additional assumption that: old age causes you to have the illnesses (which we don’t have) and to have low magnesium (which we don’t have). A statement that old people, compared to other age groups, are correlated with the illnesses and low magnesium would then adequately raise the possibility that old age is the third cause.

Issue 3: (C) is also discussing aging (particular to an individual life span) and not old age. (something comparative between age groups in a population)