I understand that answer choice B is wrong because it says "conclusion that is clearly false" but I had thought that the explanation of monogamous relationships was analogous to the explanation of altruism in the other passage. I thought that passage B was providing a another phenomenon explained by evolutionary psychology to undermine the argument in passage A by showing it doesn't make sense to use the proliferation of genes as an explanation in that analogous case. If I was doing the question, I would have eliminated based off of "conclusion that is clearly false" because it doesn't say if it's true or false (or right or wrong as said in the passage). I just don't see how these two concepts wouldn't be analogous as was said in the explanation.

At 2:08 the audio echos suddenly and I just wanted to make sure that my computer isn't broken. That being said I loved it.

Oh that makes a lot more sense, thank you for clarifying!

Just wondering if we are doing these new RC lessons and we haven't done the old ones, should we? I wonder if there's any benefit to also doing the old RC section?

I agree! I'm not sure why we can't use old questions for drills and lessons that were part of the old curriculum, now that we're doing the new curriculum.

I think the reason why E is incorrect is because none of the premises talk about the timing or when to strike. Had there been mention about why it would be more beneficial later or why now was a bad time then I could see it possibly being right. Since there was nothing in the premises about timing, the argument is talking about why not to strike rather than when would be an appropriate time to strike. We would have to assume that the argument is about when the strike happens for E to be right. I hear you about the timeline descriptor that threw me off for a couple seconds but then remembered we're looking at how the premises support the conclusion not whether the conclusion itself is true or not. This is just how I thought of it, hope this helps!

SAME and it doesn't help that NA and SA are kicking my ass, lol.

i am sixth

I think the idea is to get into the habit of seeing what an alternative might look like. If you're clear about what an alternative could look like its easier to go through the answer choices. Lets say we just went in without considering alternatives, we would have to spend more time thinking about what the alternative could be regardless. I think JY does this consideration before going into the answer choices because it makes it easier to spot the right answer choice rather than going to the choices and then thinking about it. Personally the reason I find this helpful is because the LSAT writers put tricky choices there and they can trip you up if you aren't clear on what you're looking for. I found knowing what I'm looking for before looking at the answers helped me not fall into common traps that I used to.