Subscription pricing
Here was my original notes:
this argument feels wrong ... like... it tells us that land life began NOT 0.5 billion years ago but probably like 1.2 billion years ago (implying this) due to some rocks with carbon 14... and these carbon 14 CAN be made from plants taking stuff from the atmosphere blah blah, which obviously implies (plants are living things presumably on land, unless answer choices talk about some underwater plant taking atmosphere??) there was life on land 1.2 billion years ago.
Find the choice that does NOT strengthen.
(a) finding fossils that are dated more than 0.5billion years old does help the conclusion that land did somehow begin 0.5 billion years ago.
(b) has a statement about how it was extremely difficult for life to begin in olden time oceans... This seems to strengthen, because our conclusion is trying to REFUTE the fact of life beginning in the ocean. However, just because life would be difficult back in the ancient days, doesn't mean it can't/wouldn't happen?... I don't see how this would strengthen the premise which states, namely: "oh my gosh, we found these rocks with carbon 14, and we know carbon 14 can be from plants, and these plants were 1.2 billion whatever, therefore land existed during that time"
But then again, I can't ELIMINATE this answer choice YET. I will read on, and if the remaining options, suck I'll pick this.
(c) basically tells us that this rock had the possibility that 1) it had contact with water and 2) that it also had parts that did NOT have water
I initially thought this was weird. Like why would this matter? But then if you think about it... the premises never talked about the origin of the carbon 14 of rocks. We just know that its there. The carbon could have came from like fish or something in the water. The premise only talked about plants, but it doesn't eliminate the chance of other things. So this statement strengthens.
(d) the answer choice says that the carbon 14 on rocks came not from plants but from soil and stuff. This directly supports my above point.
(e) if uranium testing shows that the rocks are ACTUALLY 1.2 billion and not some ERRONEOUS number then we are good.
Upon reviewing... reading my explanation for (d) is funny because its the SHORTEST most COP-OUT explanation known in existence.
Like now, I'm re-reading, and I feel stupid . If these carbon 14 thingies didn't come from plants (a living thing) but came from soil (obviously not living)... wouldn't it weaken my argument? Because this would show that rocks with carbon didn't come from living things, but from a non-living thing.
I think what happened was I said "like my above point" (pointing at the fish and stuff), but somehow was totally engrossed in the origins of the carbon 14 as opposed to whether the "origins" had any LIFE in them.
I just bought this course today.
The question I have, therefore, is... JY tells us that we use blind review to improve and ensure you don't make the same mistakes in the future.
I'm just confused about what exactly I'm supposed to be taking away from this analysis. It feels like I just merely "misread" or "focused on the wrong detail"
These ^ feel like stuff that I can't just "take away" and apply to other problems?
I am also taking January (I am so nervous LOL).
My take is this:
Worst case scenario, they ask 2 extremely difficult logic questions (which will either be MBT, SA, CBT), which in that case, the best thing you can is to focus on getting the other 23 questions correct, and trying to infer what the correct answer is (by analyzing answer choices, as opposed to strict stimulus analysis) by having some luck.
If ^ this case actually happens, then the RC would probably be easier, since I found a pattern where the LSAT will rarely put a super hard LR and a hard RC, it's always one or the other.
In which case, if you normally score -4 on difficult RC , you probably can get away with -2 or -0
And the other LR should be average difficulty, so if you get -2 or something, you'll still get 174+