Nah because the 5/5 difficulty ones often take like 30 seconds but I'm fighting for my life on 2/5s that 97% of people get right. What is wrong with me lmao

If you're new to studying, I highly recommend reading slowly at first! Speed will come after adequate time is spent practicing slowly. Think of it like learning to tie shoes -- it probably took a long time and lots of thinking about steps when you first learned as a wee kiddo. Now, it's likely that you can tie your shoes nearly automatically and without needing to slowly think about all the steps for how to do it. LR is just like that :) For now, your task is to be slow and confident on your first passes through questions. Being slow and deliberate during BR is also important, but you'll learn timing strategies for your first attempts over time.

I'm just gonna have to accept that I will get some questions wrong and not fully know why yet

I love when I spend 2 minutes overthinking a 1/5 difficulty question

I get almost every single 5/5 difficulty NA or SA question right under the time limit, but every 2/5 and 1/5 difficulty question in these categories takes me 11 minutes and I still get em wrong. What is wrong with my idiot chungus brain

I started this question yesterday, said "nope", came back to it today, and got it right. SA questions are my worst type so far, so for anyone feeling discouraged, just remember this study journey is a type of training. It gets easier over time, and stepping away for a bit can actually make the training better in the long run. We've got this

Same af because the stimulus annoyed me and A felt good enough so I raw dogged it

For those who got this wrong, the gist of why D is correct is because you can extrapolate an explanation for the discrepancy between the two studies with every other answer choice. Even the assumptions you would make to choose E provide some kind of rational explanation for why people in the first study had better health outcomes. D literally says a placebo was used for some study participants. Note that results are compared to a placebo since this provides a "control" for the study in which results were ultimately extrapolated. So D has no impact. This question is hard because the answer that didn't provide an explanation also didn't contradict anything. The right answer was just the irrelevant one

I think here, the grammar nuances matter for understanding. "Most large nurseries sell raspberry plants primarily to commercial raspberry growers and sell only plants that are guaranteed to be disease-free."

So here's what we know about MOST large nurseries:

- Tend to sell to commercial growers ("primarily" is literally defined as "for the most part")

AND

- Sell only plants guaranteed to be disease free

This translates to

- Most large nurseries mostly sell to commercial growers

- Most large nurseries sell plants guaranteed to be disease free

So anyone can technically buy from a large nursery. Choice E "If Wally's Plants is a large nursery, then the raspberry plants that Johnson received in the shipment were probably not entirely as they were guaranteed to be." is the only choice that works with what we know to be true and its use of the world probably is viable with the rules established, so it's therefore most strongly supported.

I got this right in 5 minutes but was prematurely aged as a result of it. Thanks, LSAC!

CLUM

I almost always just read the explanation personally every time because I can read it faster than I can watch. I may watch a segment on why a choice was wrong if I was split between two even if I selected the right one in the end. I also will watch the video for a question I got right if it took me longer than the target time to figure out.

I think the main challenge here is to look at ONLY what the passage says. The passage is the only thing where we can get any kind of support from to come up with a conclusion because the question type is not asking us to infer anything from the choices. The only things we have to go off of to formulate a conclusion are said explicitly in the rest of the passage.

Another thing is that "over time" is vague, and nothing about time is inherently correlated with age like what choice A is getting at. For example, let's assume exposure to a certain sound frequency over time is bad for a dolphin's ability to communicate, but does that mean it has to be exposed from birth until a certain age for the deleterious effects to kick in? What if the dolphin is middle aged and suddenly gets a lot of exposure to boat noise in that range? Or a geriatric dolphin lives in a place where a new boating route is established and it gets repeated exposure? Isn't the effect (reduced ability to communicate) the same for all of these groups? Again, nothing about time is inherently correlated with age like what choice A is getting at, and we have to make assumptions (which isn't what this question type wants us to do) for A to be right.

While it's a great skill to think about A and find a way to make A work, the question type isn't about finding a way to make it work. That talent will be more helpful with other question types tho!

You're so real for mentioning this because I have been lost for the past 5 or so lessons and felt really bad about it lol

I think "with" in this case is less of a "modifier" of perennial plant and basically functions more like the word "and". I made the same mistake. Another way to think about it is that being a perennial plant AND having elongated stems are BOTH absolutely necessary to be a tree, and if you are missing one of those conditions, it can't be a tree.