I confused this question for a Most strongly supported question under timed, so choosing D actually made a lot of sense. But now reading "provides most support" I can see why D) is just consistent but doesn't really do anything to support the argument itself. I'm gonna have to keep working on making sure I read the stimuli more carefully.

I had trouble with this one too :(

I think what's important to remember is that the premise states that it is the CLUMPING of blood cells that is more pronounced in women. The causal chain of 'coffee → meth → vasopressin' is just ONE way for increase clumping.

Yes the chain ^ causes clumping of blood cells but there may be other causes for the clumping in women or maybe it's just a natural thing biologically. So really there isn't a real support for answer choice C; that women drink more coffee/tea on average because we don't know if it's the coffee or another reason for the clumping in women.

The point of the stimulus is that women face higher risk due to clumping. Whatever is the reason for the clumping, we know from premises that they shouldn't be drinking anything that produces even more clumping.

@ Can I assume that you feel fine reading through the stimulus? But, the second you read answer choice "A" you think to yourself, "Wait...what did the stimulus say again?"

YES. And because I'm unclear of the stimulus, every answer choice seems plausible. I just tried doing a few questions using your A) method, and I can definitely tell that it helps. But the issue now is that it takes a LOT of time to do these questions... I only have to assume here that time will eventually get better, but it really seems like a long ways before I'll ever be able to get to target times...

Thanks everyone for the advice. I will check to see if my school can somehow let me pursue accounting online. If not, I will most likely stay and take care of myself, and write an addendum to explain my circumstances. It's certainly relieving to hear that GPA is more of relevance than the courses themselves. Thanks again, and happy studying!

Premise 1: Students more likely to RESPOND POSITIVELY to criticism from humans than computers.

Premise 2: To ACCEPT CRITICISM, you need POSITIVE RESPONSE.

Conclusion: Students more likely to LEARN from human criticism than computers'.

The learning concept jumps out of nowhere. We need to bridge the concept of learning to either of the premises.

A) is good because it links LEARNING to ACCEPTING CRITICISM.

Therefore if a student responds positively, it means that they can accept criticism, ultimately leading to the possibility of learning from the criticism.

Hello all and @ if it's not too late I would love to take part in this!

subscribed!!

The "sometimes" threw me off on this one.

I'm not sure if this is correct but the way I thought about this question was through a logic chain.

Really clean (RC) needs detergent formulated especially for front-loading washers (DF), which requires dissolve readily (DISSOLVE).

RC→DF→DISSOLVE

Answer choice D) points to the dissolve as a necessary condition as

RC→DISSOLVE

After wrestling with this question for a few minutes, I've also noticed that B states "store OXYGEN directly in their muscle tissue" while the hypothesis says these seals are able to store oxygenated blood. Also, it requires us to assume that spleens contain muscle tissues.

once you see the right answer you can't unsee it... Have no idea why I couldn't see it during PT

Radio requires X.

Radio enabled people to regularly exercise X.

Therefore, today's generation of television viewers don't do X as much.

When I write it like this, answer choice E) makes a lot less sense. So what if TV requires X too? People might still not do it as much as when they listened to radio.

First time doing this sort of thing:

P1 - Government reduced speed limit (ie. 100 --> 75)

P2 - Less fatalities this year than last year.

Con: Speed limit reduced traffic fatalities

What does the argument assume that is flawed?

A) Doesn't seem to assume this. Even if it has, this would help the argument, not point out the flaw in it.

B) Tricky but...doesn't assume this one either. Even it if does, doesn't wreck the argument because we could still see a decline in traffic fatalities.

C) Yes it assumes this but is this one the flaw? Why is it a flaw to describe a relationship between two things? We only get into trouble if you're concluding a causation.

D) Don't know where it assumes this on either.

E) YES, it must assume this. If it doesn't assume this, they argument is wrecked. If it is an abnormal number, then that means that the causation is suddenly spurious.

I initially chose B) but I'm starting to see why it doesn't actually weaken the premise.

I thought B) was somehow attacking the argument by saying that it wasn't OPV's fault but actually another cause (the preexisting immunodeficiency). But regardless, it still suggests that OPV ENABLES this and we know nothing about whether IPV does or not. Either way, it suggests that OPV will continue to do so and that perhaps IPV might be a better option.

Oh the examples are very helpful! Thank you both!

Took me like 30 mins of rereading to finally get this.

The way I simply put it in my head is:

If I train, I will be able to run faster.

A) is saying something like: If I don't train, I won't be able to run as fast as if I did train.

There is a condition (let's say X) that improves a result/condition (Y).

If you don't have X, then you may still get Y but not as well as if you did have X.

Therefore, you can't "maximally" get Y.

@ hmm really? When I signed up for September in June the "what is an acceptable photo?" section was different than how it is now, and back then it definitely did not have the 2x2 requirement. I remember being super cautious and checking my photo against the requirements one by one.

Hey guys, I actually emailed them about this issue a couple of days ago. I told them that initially when I uploaded the photo the 2x2 requirement was definitely not there, and I asked if it would be okay or if I could change it.

This was their response:

"I am sorry, but it is now too late to change your photo. Acceptability of your photo will be determined by the test center supervisor on test day. The test center supervisor will confirm that the photo displayed on your admission ticket matches your appearance on the day of the test."

Honestly, I doubt the proctor would deny anyone for this particular issue, but then again, it's LSAC...