I think another issue with answer choice C is that is points to the wrong logical direction. The stimulus' conclusion says that to heal, people need to change. But C gets it opposite; it's saying that when people do change, they will get relief (or heal), which is not what the conclusion says at all. So this is what I think why C is wrong.

I was really confused about A, but thanks to the explanation of lexxx745, now I understand it! Initially I was confused because the sti already says that compromises are impossible to make, when such compromises concerns an issue of fundamental importance to a large bloc of representatives. However, in A, the compromises are already made, which seems go directly against the premise. But as lexxx745 user indicates, the compromise has to be about the "content" of the bill so that it won't be made. Answer choice A only talks about compromises in general terms, wheareas answer C directly mentions compromises over the bills' contents. So this is why A is a could be true answer.

such a good explanation! Thank you! I was pretty confused about A

I chose E because I confused between "majority of the issue" and "majority of those attending". But once I look at the stimulus more closely and tell the difference, E can be easily ruled out.

To figure out why D is wrong, we just need to understand that to influence the argument, it's important to know whether the phosphates produced by residents occupy a significant portion of all phosphates treated by the plant. In other words, it's about the phosphate proportion within the treatment plant. However, the stimulus doesn't test this part. Instead, it tries to lure us into choosing D, which actually talks about what proportion does the whole phosphate in the treatment plant occupy in the entire phosphate of waterways. In other words, it talks about phosphate proportion outside the treatment plant.

I feel that this question is also a test on being super careful with what the stimulus and answer choices are saying...you could easily skim over a few words and the entire meaning is changed.

Yep, this is so absurd....I feel like we have to interpret "exercise" to be anaerobic

Personally I feel that line 45-50 supports A. This part mentions that with the exception of traits like height, other traits can be developed from intensive training. I think this means that for traits like height, it's actually difficult to ascertain whether it's developed from intensive training or it's innate.

me: currently pulling off hair lol

To strengthen an argument, the correct answer choice doesn't have to prove the argument to be 100% true. To strengthen 1% is to strengthen; to strengthen 100% is also to strengthen. So even there are minor flaws, as long as an answer choice makes the original argument even a little bit better than before, it is the correct answer choice.

I think writing down the whole passage might be helpful, but I don't think it is the writing that helps. Instead, it is the mindset when actively reading and analyzing every sentence or word that is in fact at work while copying the passage. But if you want to train your mind to be more actively engaged in the reading, then there are other more efficient ways to accomplish this goal. In my opinion, copying the whole passage seems to be the least efficient way to do it.

Reading the note that Levi-Montalcini was trying to conduct the research while hiding from murderous fascists really inspires me. If she could produce a Nobel prize winning research result under such dire circumstances, why can't we conquer LSAT in a more comfortable modern world?

My understanding of (B):

Basically the short time doesn’t refer to “5000 years”. Instead, it means that 5000 years ago, apples were first cultivated, so they were very like their wild counterparts. The remains were only cultivated around a time that apples were first started to be cultivated, eg maybe 4999 years ago or 4998 years ago. So they were only cultivated for 2 or 3 or 5 years since first cultivation attempt. But today’s apples, they have been cultivated for 5000 years, so they were developed and cultivated to be much bigger than wild ones.

Your understanding brings in outside information, and this couldn't help when we take the actual test. I was confused initially, but then I came across a really good explanation. Basically the short time doesn't refer to "5000 years". Instead, in means that 5000 years ago, apples were first cultivated, so they were very like their wild counterparts. The remains were only cultivated around time that apples were first started to be cultivated, eg maybe 4999 years ago or 4998 years ago. So they were only cultivated for 2 or 3 or 5 years since first cultivation attempt But today's apples, they have been cultivated for 5000 years, so they were developed and cultivated to be much bigger than wild ones.

I hope you would find this explanation more justifiable cuz I was just as confused as you were.

@minahrashid512 I totally get your feelings! I also got 2 LGs, with the first section (LG) so freaking hard, and I really couldn't focus on my later sections. I also want to blame myself for this, but hey it is a really difficult tests, next time we will both do better! Things that make us mentally break down do happen. Take this time as a lesson, and register for October test! I believe we will ace next time!

I had two LGs, the sequence was LG-LR-RC-LG. The first LG was significantly harder than the second one. I hope it was the experiment section (sad face)

I would say that we could tell passage A is more engaged than B is because A frequently uses pronouns such as "we", whereas passage B uses "someone" or "one". In this sense, I would say B is more detached.

the stimulus says acrylics CANNOT fix badly cracked paint, whereas answer C says acrylics SHOULD NOT paint other types of paint. Just because it cannot fix the cracked paint, doesn't mean it should not paint over it. What if people just want to paint it over cracked paint. So there is a difference between should can be done versus what should be done.

You should not take more than three times. The law school advisor at my school told me that even though your highest score matters most, admission officers would still look at your lower scores, thinking that maybe your real ability lies somewhere between. So ideally take only once and get the best score. But since that's so difficult, my advisor told me not to take more than three times. Maximum should be three. Hope this helps!

My diagnostic test was only 144 (even under untimed conditions), but I was not sad cuz 144 meant there would be lots of room for me to improve:) For LG I only used 7sage. For LR, 7 sage is great but a book called Loophole is a must-have. Loophole helped me from -12/13 to -6. For RC I also used 7sage. Of course, the most important resource is PT. I have studied for the test for a whole year all by myself, and I got 161 in April test. I will keep working on it until I get 170+. I believe I can do it and I believe you can do it!

So if you say that the "vested interests" include both types of critics, then isn't answer choice A more likely to be true?

I got 144 when I first took my diagnosis test. And I just scored 161 on April test. I have worked really hard for one year and even though I feel so tired and always so discouraged, I still believe I can improve. 170 + is my dream and I will never give up working towards it. If I can improve, so can you! The diagnosis test doesn't determine anything. It only reveals how much space you can improve!

第一次见到使用中文的朋友哈哈哈哈

#Q21

I initially chose (D), but now I know why (D) is wrong and (A) is correct. I would say that what the author is trying to do is to provide a new diagnosis (offering a new explanation) instead of prescribing medications to a misdiagnosis.

To prescribe medications to a misdiagnosis, you first have to accept the misdiagnosis and try to offer cure to the disease. However, the author is simply providing another new diagnosis. So that's why (D) is wrong. The author isn't trying to provide cure/solution to the misdiagnosis.

On the other hand, (A) is much easier to support. The author does question the conclusion of the researcher team, and accepts their data regarding the October tide and synthetic pollutants.

I think one way to understand how B is different from C is to use examples to understand what answer B and stimulus actually mean and how they differ from each other.

B is saying that people's beliefs would affect their judgment of pain intensity. For example, B means that arthritis sufferers' beliefs in weather causing the pain actually affect how painful they feel.

But stimulus is saying that even though arthritis sufferers believe in weather causing the pain, the frequency and time they say so are inconsistent (the time interval is varying).

Therefore based on the stimulus, we can see how B is different from what the stimulus intends to mean. The stimulus more supports answer C, which means that since such time interval is so inconsistent, such correlation doesn't exist so people are imagining it.

Hope my analysis helps.