Discussions

User Avatar
18096
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT113.S2.Q2
User Avatar
18096
Monday, Jun 08 2020

If you've already read other posts explaining it I'm not sure how helpful Ill be but Ill give it a shot:

The crux of this question is the distinction between "Refusal" and the "Standard of Refusal". Refusal is the idea that a spike will not go any further into the ground. The "Standard of Refusal" is that the spikes won't go further into the ground more than 2 inches for every 24 hammer blows. That is to say that the amount of effort required to drive the spikes is far greater than the return of how much further the spikes go into the ground. Under the "Standard of Refusal" the spikes could move 1.99 inches after 24 hammer blows, but still meet the criteria. So this is not true "Refusal" as it has been defined.

E is the correct answer because the Rioalto bridge met the "Standard of Refusal" but this doesn't necessarily mean that they where driven all the way to Refusal. They could possibly reside somewhere between the laxer "standard of refusal" and the stricter "Refusal".

1
LSAT · PT4.S4.Q23-24
User Avatar
18096
Friday, May 29 2020

For Q23 D doesn't have to be assumed because if both the twins are schizophrenic one could have a smaller brain than the other, however both are smaller than what the brain would be if either one was not schizophrenic. So it isn't completely necessary.

For Q24 all you are looking for is the one answer choice that is directly contradicted by the premises of the argument. The fact that most of them aren't connected at all is what makes them correct, they may or may not be true, but there is nothing in the prompt that would force them to not be true. Except for D, because if we take the premises as true (as the stem requires us to do) then we will never be able to tell if someone will be schizophrenic simply from their DNA, because here we have an example of two people with identical DNA, one haveing the disease and the other not having the disease.

0
PrepTests ·
PT150.S2.Q20
User Avatar
18096
Wednesday, Apr 22 2020

#help

I am confused by this answer. If you solve the paradox by accepting that that one of the premises is false wouldn't that allow you to not go against your intuition, since your intuition is only that the conclusion would follow from True Premises?

Since we don't have true premises we sidestep the whole the issue. and we don't have to go against our intuition.

1
PrepTests ·
PT113.S2.Q9
User Avatar
18096
Sunday, Dec 01 2019

The question stem introduces 2 concepts:

1) Although studies of young children have revealed important facts about the influence of environment on language acquisition, it is clear one cannot attribute such acquisition solely to environmental influences:

The takeaway is we cannot attribute all of language acquisition to the environment, there has to be something else at work

The rest of the sentence states that Innate mechanisms also play a role.

Okay cool, so there are two things going on with language acquisition: Environment and Innate Mechanisms.

The question is then asking us what would make sense to study next, given what we now know.

A) Kind of irrelevant, who said we are trying to fully explain in, just understand it better. Why would we study whether something can be fully explained?

B) We already know that they are from the prompt.

C) We already know that Environment and Innate Mechanisms are both at play

D) We could study this to find new information but it disregards the innate mechanisms that we know are working on language acquisition, so it leaves something on the table

E) This takes the information we have and uses it to formulate a non redundant question that uses all available information. It directly is comparing the two aspects of language acquisition that we know are involved. This would be a good question for further research.

Hope that's helpful!

1
PrepTests ·
PT108.S1.P1.Q6
User Avatar
18096
Sunday, Dec 01 2019

The generalization is that paragraph 2 ends by talking about "Mexicanidad" which was Khalo's style that blended all the influences that were discussed earlier in the paragraph. The generalization is this lofty description of the influences of her political beliefs on her work.

Paragraph 3 goes on to describe a specific painting where these ideas are applied.

E is the best answer for describing this function of paragraph 3.

0
PrepTests ·
PT126.S4.Q5
User Avatar
18096
Sunday, Dec 01 2019

The prompt states that "...Drugs are a necessary part of the treatment for all patients who receive them...". It also states that the outcomes of those who are prescribed drugs and those who are not prescribed drugs are the same.

B is the only answer that reconciles those two things by making the prescription of drugs part of the treatment only for those people that require them (think of it as those with severe back injuries need an extra boost (drugs) to get outcomes as good as those who only need PT).

A is not really reconciling anything. It is only restating something that we already know from the prompt, those with back injuries (of which serious is a sub-type) are sometimes treated with PT and sometimes with PT and Drugs.

That is how I think of this question at least, hope that helps!

0

So I just got 7Sage, however I've been studying for the LSAT for a few months now off and on. I have taken probably ~17 PTs (most of them being pre PT35) and gone through the powerscore Logic Games book as well the Logical reasoning book (didn't find that helpful).

My question is should I put my Practice Tests on hold until I've completed the Core Curriculum? I've only gone through a few units of it so far, but I'm already changing my strategies and seeing new ways to tackle problems.

It seems like it would be a waste to use some of my practice tests before being as ready as I can be from a strategies stand point.

Any input would be appreciated, Thanks!

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?