video could have been shorter to really drill that point home.

be aggressive!

14/16 then 15/16 on the br. that last one oof

misguided vs "not shared".

A was my initial pick and then i thought it was wrong so i went with 2 wrong answers instead.

@DNAlex insane work king. thank you o7

love me some low-res summaries. keepin it 144p

Aeschylus be like:

thankful for these examples so i can make the connections from breaking down the passage to how i can then use those to answer the questions

debate is ongoing because of the "constant" tension :D o7

was there ever really a choice?

"Autonomy of the Individual" -basically all of Aeschylus' work according to B. Snell, the scholar:(brain started crafting a visual while reading and making a mental note of the first paragraph HAH)

don't be afraid to re-read. you have the time :D

kind of psyched myself out on 5 because C was my initial feeling and then it felt too obvious.

these were one of the questions i hated the most before

this one felt a little confusing but a nice nudge to reinforce and sharpen the edges.

while the sentences weren't 1:1 here, i had to understand the overall flow and make my own little buckets or stages

premise that has a bit of a stance/connotation, gives explanation and reasoning for alternative or discrepancy

C didn't explicitly state their argument like the stimulus ("But this would be a misleading...") and rather meshed it together with the premise. While the sentence by sentence structure wasn't the same, it still had the same flow.

trying to think less about sentence by sentence and more overall architecture (or maybe just depends on the question :D)

loving the method. i'm not even sure what i'm reading half the time now because all. i'm doing is looking at it from the skeleton/structure and matching that 1:1.

sentence 1: some statement ("A just system...")

sentence 2: the theory/claim/some ol' bs ("For purposes of...")

sentence 3: conclusion ("Therefore, each person..")

Looking at choice A

sentence 1: some statement ("cars should be taxed...")

sentence 2: the theory/claim/some ol' bs ("most reliable measure...")

sentence 3: conclusion ("therefore cars should be taxed...")

-------------------

one thing i noticed was the word "solely" from the stimulus. that was the deciding factor (cars should be taxed ONLY) for me.

finding the tip of predicting and eliminating to be one method for these.

full stop once you hit a bump that makes it not follow the argument/stimulus and onto the next choice

last lesson and this lesson are really keeping my afloat through these. bless

please please start to make sense

working backwards helped a ton. grateful for this example!

Stimulus notes (initial pass)

• POV of a newspaper subscriber

• Arnot’s editorial : change some stuff in the government then we can get rid of our big problems

• Other side: you’re wrong. Even if we change the small stuff, government might not care about us and continue as usual, have the big problems not get fixed. Glass is half full or half empty (targeting assumption about the government. Kinda negative/passive aggressive)

Stem: which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument’s reasoning (the other side, not Arnot’s editorial. Does the ‘other side’s argument have any issues with it?

Honestly, wasn’t sure of the exact meaning of “repudiates” but based on the context of the rest, it seems to mean something they’re disputing or saying the claim isn’t good because they said that they (Arnot’s editorial) are relying on the government having good intentions so if they changes are made, then the government will eliminate the big problems. Because the government stinks (according to the subscriber), the subscriber is saying the editorial’s claim is bad. 

A is correct.

Could go through each of the rest of the choices but they felt either what they said wasn't what the argument was doing/saying or accurately describing the argument's role/purpose/function.

E was just wrong completely and a nice freebee to eliminate.

smh tom

researcher/lsat:

@SydneyRoper didn't trust mine and got 2 wrong answers instead :D

key here felt like finding what the resident's argument truly was or the core of it. i jumped the gun on A but in the blind, it felt a lot clearer that the resident was focusing on the smaller fish in the pond and that connected with the section of them making the connection or arguing that there's a correlation and D was the only one that addresses the correlation/causation argument.

stared at the question for a little too long trying to spot the difference...