so the biggest takeaway from here:

the things compared are multiple short vacations vs a long vacation. However, it is the same amount of time. Pay close attention to this fact. I read vacation time and assumed that it could be whatever amount of time the employee chose (why did I assume this much, see where your own assumptions get you in trouble?!) and so therefore the multiple mini vacations would mean far more hours.

But the comparison is short vacations vs one or two long ones. Using the same amount of time. And when you follow this logic the correct answer E is obvious. The others already seemed out of scope

I wished he would have explained D more.

I understand that by careful reading + understanding the control group, I could have gotten the correct answer. But is D wrong because it's focusing in on the experimental group in a way that's not even relevant? That's how I'm understanding this.

Like, the argument is talking about diet of foods. The potatoes are genetically modified. But does it matter if that one specific item of potatoes has better/worse/equal nutrition than the potatoes that are NOT genetically modified?

Hmm

this question and the green blob made my skin crawl so bad

the isotope mention made my head swim LOL

note to self: if you miss a key adjective in the stimulus, you will miss the question. Pay more attention to conclusions and premises directly. The focus should have been *normal looking insects, not just containing insects in general.

this question is why it's important to read clearly. I missed the part about codefendants' and read it as simply codefendants. When read as the former, the answer is easily revealed.

I keep getting these wrong :(

this explanation feels very confusing, esp with the symbols

still not quite understanding this explanation

ya this "correct" answer C, doesn't seem right to me either. Like it's just going too far. In most other contexts, we are not allowed to make an assumption that requires us to justify choosing an answer. Like that's just going too far. Why would it strengthen just to say the students are in those majors? And also "little upward pressure" confused me so bad like what does this even mean

the LSAT does this a lot. they try to get you to confuse one topic with a slightly related one. research isn't the same thing as teaching well

I knew that A which I chose was wrong, but I couldn't figure out why. I also got thrown off by the Waterfront vs Longview. Idky it was just something about those proper nouns that distracted me.

Then I didn't grasp that the argument was saying that initially they were going to build a majestic new subway. But they need that connecting line from both stops to make it convenient for travelers.

One premise that doesn't seem to jump out: It's convienent. But also:

P1: If they have a connecting line AND a majestic subway, they are going to go over budget.

P2: The budget can't be increased. So they should go with the more modest one.

If those things are all true, then it must mean that:

Convenience is more important.

I thought C was wrong because I thought walking and exercise were the same concepts. How often does the LSAT have to present me with two different concepts lol???

I chose B because I thought it meant that strengthening of leg muscles was the same thing as leg muscles adapting to the shape of...

I will say, use of the term "immediately" made me hesitate. So that was my intuition telling me that wasn't quite the right answer and I should have listened.

Note to self: adapting to the shape of does not mean, exercise.

C makes sense because the muscles get stronger, literally meaning they're being used more EVEN THOUGH they're not being exercised more. It's simply due to walking.

God this question is crazy

I didn't know you needed two data points. I even did the piecemeal reading. I was then down to choosing between A and C. I didn't think C was correct because I didn't know if the quality thing could be called below average. I didn't quite think A fit, but I couldn't figure out how it was wrong.

And no, I couldn't understand that A was saying it was a cause effect conclusion. Now I know.

I definitely got lost in this question and it kinda annoyed me that it was so early on in the PT. But basically I have realized that I need to tighten up on my conditionals. I couldn't write out the statements for answer choices D and B

Such an easy question that I missed because I confused obligation with interest. Totally different things.

I thought it was saying that the people with close ties to others felt it was in their best interest not to be risky. Simple misread but D makes sense because it's saying that the law based on that premise is simply not enough

God, let all my test day RC questions be this easy to understand hahaha! amen

I chose B because I was more caught up in trying to understand the point surrounding the highlighted areas than what was actually highlighted. I brought in my own off the street assumption, thinking that "proof of emergence" meant something that was new. I should have examined the phrase: proof of emergence. Evidence of emergence. Within Greek society.

It's a tricky one. My main takeaway from this is not to liken one concept to another. D is simply saying that this idea agreed with this broader idea in society. It's not my favorite question or answer, but it makes sense.

I got this question wrong because I missed the part about the bird decrease. That's significant because it shows that they were removed. This one was so tricky

I can't believe I chose C. I was thinking of it being a weakener, that's why I was so confused about the answers. I should have stuck to the stimulus in observing that the humans being responsible meant I simply needed to look for a choice to corresponded with this. And that's AC E

I didn't realize that distinction between 24 and 48 hours. The city may not clear the sidewalk within 48 hours. So I could end up going past that and getting fined. I chose E, but E is wrong because it doesn't specify the set of landowners. The set of landowners who haven't cleared after 48 hours, and can provide a good excuse, may not get fined. Those two elements needed to be there together to make E correct.

I initially thought A was too simple, but the others simply don't fulfill the requirements.

when I was reading this, "the only ones" stuck out to me, but I was too mentally exhausted to understand what it was implying. And the nonrepresentational thing threw me off. I reread it before watching the video and it was so easy to understand.

I was confused about this because I couldn't tell if just simply saying journalists meant all, although I thought it implied all. I feel like the conditional is the only thing separating this answer choice from the correct one. And including that the chain goes on and on.

I debated between B and E for the longest. But now I see that B matches completely in structure.

if you see a strengthening question with a scientific topic, look for the answer that verifies that hypothesis.

Got it.

I had eliminated everything but didn't really believe E was correct. Why should they all have to have an encounter with a killer whale before recognizing the difference? I didn't realize that instead it focuses on aftermath of being attacked vs default state that changes over time from youth to maturity.

Default is key here.

C agrees with the hypothesis because it says that the seals (the subject) reacts in a certain way (running away) and that's strengthening the hypothesis. Default response. Changes over time.

I chose D because I read too quickly and assumed that the question wanted an answer on HOW the enzyme worked, instead of recognizing that it had already answered that question in the stimulus: the enzyme gets rid of nicotine quickly, and the person wants more. And THE MOST COMMON VERSION.

I misread.

Answer choice A makes sense because it's answering the question of why is it that the people who have this common enyzme smokes more?

Well, it must be that the most common enyzme is the one that works that fastest.