The stimulus is whole to part:

Premise: whole universe moves towards entropy

Conclusion: therefore, a part of the universe (Earth's biosphere) moves towards entropy

Answer choice A is also whole to part:

Premise: whole interconnected lake system is one of the most beautiful lake systems

Conclusion: therefore, part of the ILS (Wooded Lake) is one of the most beautiful lakes

For answer choice B, the problem is that it is trying to present a flawed argument going from whole to part, however the the premise is discussing the COLDEST day whereas the conclusion is saying that its likely the weather was KINDA COLD. So, it is not successfully applying a feature from the whole onto the parts. (coldest to kinda cold vs. coldest to coldest)

For 2, "play around" means to take the right answer of the next set of questions and rephrase them like the above example with the blackout boxes:

The argument assumes, without warrant, that ........(correct AC wording)

The argument fails to consider the possibility that ........(correct AC wording)

For 3, I think "sticky" refers to wrong answers that we thought were right, or could be right, or were unsure about. Editing the stimulus or the answer to make the answer right should help to see why, in the actual question at hand, the answer is wrong.

I did but now I read the explanation instead of watching the video and get it done in half the time... also makes more sense for lol

wouldn't pneumonia be iatrogenic only if it was a result of a medical procedure treating your cold/flu?

I think for Flaw-Descriptive Weakening questions where the stem is worded as "the argument is flawed in that it..." it can be approached in the same way that weaken questions are. So, the answer choice would be specific and match the stimulus, like C does here. (if you read the text in the first lesson I think that is where the breakdown about the rare Flaw question that is equivalent to Weaken)

For regular Flaw questions the answers will be more general

LSAThacks has a really concise explanation for this question. Look for it under PT65 LR2 Q21 (the modern PT135 where this question also shows up is for members only).

I was debating between A and B. I read "schematics" in A as being something simple or basic to accompany the engineer's oral talk, and read "maps" in B as being something very detailed and intricate similar to textbook illustrations, and chose A based on that.

I find the older explanation video for the PT section question explanations way less confusing to understand...

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-17/

If I get it right confidently, I'll just read the "Let's review" to quickly check if my reasoning for getting it right was correct.

If I was hesitant, deciding between two answers, or basically guessed, then I'll watch the video or read the explanation.

Same, because it said "around the time many of the last dinosaur species were becoming extinct" I immediately thought "ah so the rest of the dinos around the world are probably gone and its just these guys left around Mexico"

Chose B initially and then chose D during blind review but after going over it one last time I switched it back to B before submitting the blind review... damn that is annoying

To add, if the sentence was just "Dogs are better than cats" and we then assumed it's because "dogs can run fast" based on our own personal opinion as to why dogs are better than cats, that would be more dangerous. There's nothing in "Dogs are better than cats" that would lead us to believe it's because of their speed. Maybe the real reason is because dogs bark and cats meow.

But having “Dogs are better than cats. Dogs can run fast," we can safely read "Dogs can run fast" as being the support/premise for the claim "Dogs are better than cats"

I think it could be dangerous, since something can be "anti-supported" yet not fully contradictory. If it falls under "probably false / weakly anti-supported," it is under the "contradicts" section AND an "anti-supported" point on the spectrum, but we do not know enough about it to say for certain that it is a contradiction (the furthest right point, "must be false").

Same here, I'm wondering if 7Sage is having issues. I can't even update my billing or subscription info here.