Discussions

LSAT

New post

299 posts in the last 30 days

For this one I picked E but is it because that its more of background information as opposed to a premise which the answer A is?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

0

Hey everyone

I am looking for an Active LSAT Discord Server. I am prepping to take the LSAT June 2023. I am also looking for partners to study with preferably once a week. I am a non traditional student who works full time but my schedule is different everyday so I have some flexibility. This will not be my first time taking the LSAT. Looking to score in the 165 range!

0

#help why is E the correct answer? I am confused because there seems to be nothing in the stimulus that alludes to E being correct, and it seems as if one would have to have prior knowledge of mussels/their chemical transformation abilities to know this. I do not necessarily think any of the other choices or very strong, but this choice E seemed very random to me. I'd appreciate any insight of what I'm missing!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

0

On this question I initially answered correctly, but then during BR changed to the wrong answer. I am beginning to understand why C is correct, but I still feel like I am not even 100% sure what the stimulus itself is actually saying.

Here is the stimulus:

The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, such as squirrels, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.

What's throwing me off is that I don't understand how "energy output available to perform this task" differs from "energy an animal must expend." I was also a little confused by the jump from talking about energy to speed (saying that this is why squirrels can run up a trunk at the same speed)- am I meant to interpret that as saying that it uses the same amount of energy? If so, is that in relation to energy output available or the amount that must be expended and how would I know that?

Thanks for any help in advance!

0

Need someone to keep me accountable for the next two months. Want a study partner to just study in silence with. We don't necessarily need to be studying the same things, but it would help to have similar goals/workloads to keep each other motivated. I have taken the LSAT twice in 2022 and scored a 167 in November. I have stopped studying for a couple months now and hope to pick things up to get a mid 170. I am currently in school but is generally free all days except Tuesday and Thursdays, and I aim to devote ~50 hours a week to study. Add me on discord xtt#8183 if interested!

0

Hello everyone! I’ve been improving on my reading ability on the RC section and have been absorbing and understanding the information much better in my drills. I find that my problem are the harder questions. Like I understand the passage well but the complex questions throw me off. Idk if that makes sense but does anyone have any tips on how to counter this?

0

I'm still not clear on the contrapositive since there can never be a scenario where there is no table, according to the rules (Irene buys 4 items), whether the footstool or vanity is in or out. If this contrapositive is a true expression, is it not indicating that there IS a scenario where there is no table AND no footstool? Am I thinking about it wrong?

Contrapositives have always made sense and worked for me in many other questions, except this one. This is why I tried including a conjunction with the X (wood), because I was trying to figure out how to keep the existence of a table apart and separate from the existence of a table made from a particular wood (almost as if it were a 6th furniture option), but couldn't figure it out. I truly hope my question makes sense.

0

I want to try using tougher non-lsat passages to create questions. Each member will be assigned a question type to create with the same passage. Only message if you are serious and willing to commit, as this will require a group chat and a virtual meet-up to discuss approaches. If you can't turn your camera on to engage, and can't commit to meeting times, don't message. Personally I average -5 and this group will be more effective if the average gaps are very wide. From explaining answer choices to approaches, and sharing different way to tackle question stems, diverse averages will actually work best. Planning to sit for June but will reconsider if I'm not ready

0

PT16.S3.12 – Retina Scanners

This argument deals with retina scanners, machines that scan the blood vessel patterns in people’s eyes and stores these patterns, such that the scanners can recognized previously scanned patterns. The author furthermore posits that no two eyes have identical blood pattern vessels in their retinas, which seems to suggest that any given person has at least two such patterns, one for the left eye and one for the right one. The author then infers the conclusion that “[a] retina scanner can therefore be used successfully to determine for any person whether it has ever scanned a retina of that person before.”

We are supposed to identify a necessary assumption for this argument, i.e. an assumption that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises. Under timed conditions, I chose (B), which posits that everyone’s left and right eyes have identical patterns. I took this to be necessary for the conclusion to follow, due to conclusion’s scope (the conclusion is about “for any PERSON who ever had a retina scanned,” not about “for any given RETINA that ever has been scanned”). However, (B) seems to be false, for at least two reasons: (1) (B) goes against the information we get in the stimulus, where we are explicitly told that no two retinas have identical patterns. (2) (B) does not seem necessary for the rest of the claim that the conclusion seeks to establish (“Retina scanners allow you to answer the question, has one of the this person’s retinas ever been scanned?”). To make (B) a necessary condition, the conclusion would have to say something like “Even if you only scanned one of this person’s two retinas beforehand but not the other, retina scanners allow you to determine whether either of this person’s retinas has ever been scanned before.” However, (B) is not necessary for the way the conclusion is actually stated; the conclusion never says that the evidence to consider for any given person is a scan of only one of their retinas, as opposed to two.

The right answer choice (A) avoids this mistake by blocking another possible objection: What if people’s retina patterns change over time? Wouldn’t this make it impossible to recognize past scans later on, contrary to the argument’s conclusion suggests? (A) blocks this possible objection by establishing: Even if people get e.g. eye sicknesses, the patterns in their retinas remain unchanged over time.

0

The reason why the restorers want to make an exception for De Volterra is that De Volterra removed ALL layers of paint in the sections of the paintings where he made his addition before he made these additional. This suggests: De Volterra removed not only those layers of paint that people other than Michelangelo had added but also parts of Michelangelo's works themselves. This in turn means: If De Volterra's additions were removed as well, Michelangelo's underlying painting would not be revealed. Instead, there would just be a blank piece of wall, as De Volterra already removed those sections of Michelangelo's work that were there originally.

Making an exception for De Volterra thus arguably makes sense, because even an addition made by a painter other than Michelangelo would seem better than just have a blank piece of wall in the middle of Michelangelo's painting.

0

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the correct answer

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format:"PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

0

I learned a subtle but crucial characteristic of necessary assumptions today, and am excited to share it with you:

Be careful when dismissing a Necessary Assumption answer on the basis of it appearing to be irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus. "Relevance" is more the domain of Sufficient Assumptions. With Necessary Assumptions, the correct answer is relevant in a structural sense, which might not jump out at you without a careful read.

In the rattlesnake question, I saw "food" and dismissed it too soon. I picked A, even though I felt uneasy about it. It felt too obvious. Perhaps a good question to ask of the answer in the NA context is not 'what does it say' but 'what does it do'.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-22/

0

Correct: D

Incorrect: E

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

Explanation: "D" makes it where we can't say that the effects go away with age. By saying that the 2nd and 3rd studies were flawed, we can take away the conclusion that is based on those results. "E" doesn't specify how many children slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted. "E" could have 5 children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights along with 95 children that slept with nightlights and were not nearsighted. Because we don't know if the other children were nearsighted even though they didn't sleep with nightlights, or slept with nightlights and weren't nearsighted, or not nearsighted and didn't sleep with nightlights, we can't form a conclusion on partial results. It just talks about several older children that were nearsighted and slept with nightlights. That's not enough say that nearsightedness caused by nightlights goes away with age.

0

Correct: A

Incorrect: C

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-09/

"C" is incorrect because the male population could've stayed the same and the decline of the female population made it equal to the male population. "A" is correct because "proportional" gives relation to the whole population. It is saying that the decline of the female population is a decline in the total population. This takes it from being 2/3 of just females to 2/3 of the species.

0

I got this question wrong both before and after BR and the explanations did not help but I finally think I understand it so I wanted to help anyone still confused like I was!

Here is how I logically mapped it out (I,F, and U mean inviting, functional, unobtrusive)

I & F → U

Contrapositive: Not U → not I or not F

This is the rule which the stimulus says modern architects violate. To violate this rule it would be that it is NOT the case that (I & F → U)

In other words, in order to violate this rule, there must be some case in which there is I and F, but not U

This is where I got caught up, as I was thinking that they had only mentioned that the buildings were not functional, but had not mentioned if they were inviting- but that doesn't matter. For the rule to be violated, it HAS to be the case (MUST BE TRUE) that there is some case with I, F, and NOT U. The other details are unimportant, as the correct answer just focuses on one aspect of the conditions that must be met for this rule to be violated.

Let me know if anyone has another explanation that makes more sense, or if my reasoning is wrong at any point!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?