- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
I share the sentiment in the chat, and here are the two crucial lessons I learned here:
1.Don't see “only if” → identify necessary condition → immediately eliminate.
Instead:
Translate → contrapose if useful → compare to the argument.
2.I mistakenly thought: "C can't work because of the conditional structure → okay, C is gone → A isn't great, but maybe it's the least bad...
That's exactly the moment when we should become suspicious of our elimination, not lower your standards for the remaining answers.
Good luck everyone we are only getting better when we fail
this one and the previous one are way easier than the Zeugma mosaic question
I feel incredibly happy that I got this right in 1 mins and 19 seconds by POE and saw the difficulty level is 5!!!!
come on guys. the fact that this question is this easy does not imply that the LSAT writers are trying to humor us and ease our anxiety so that we could perform better. you all know how the LSAT writers are. when they show benevolence, THEY DO IT TO LOWER YOUR GUARD DOWN SO THAT THEY CAN TORTURE YOU WHEN YOU ARE DEFENSIVELESS. the next question following such questions would definitely have subtle traps to trip you... BE ON GUARD SOLDIERS
I feel like you'll need some luck, more or less, to answer this type of questions
was a minute overtime, but through the process of elimination I got the right answer - yay me
starting to feel confident at this point of the course :) and I like this feeling
ugh so freaking annoying I don't know why I got "if financial predicament not resolved, then traffic not increased" as a premise, a classic sufficient and necessary condition confusion... but how did I even get that ughhh
18:22, my study plan has 8 hrs of material that I should go through, need to get up at 7:30 tmr for a hectic full focus work day tmr too :(
can someone who's getting the answer right, on their first try, within the time limit, enlighten the rest of us on your approach pls
you think you can trick me with answer choice E? nuh-uh I did the quantifier lessons in Foundations and I know many does not equal most. try again LSAT writers
nvm just figured this out myself,, the drug takers also experience the "placebo effect" as they do not know whether their pills are placebos or actual drug pills. So for the pills to be actually effective the drug taker group will need to show more percentage of ppl who experience pain reduction. as for my second question, for LSAT purposes, think:
Same result in both groups → no evidence that the drug caused an extra benefit.
Not:
Same result in both groups → it is logically impossible that the drug had any effect.
feel like I regained the brain cells that I lost, when I initially asked my questions 26 mins ago
uh but what if both groups reported pain reductions, but the reduction for group A (drug takers) resulted from the effectiveness of the drug, and the reduction for group B (placebo takers) resulted from the placebo effects? Does that mean, the conclusion that the drug is ineffective could be wrong, if this was the case? Or, should we not use "right"/"wrong" to judge the experiment results, but place the results on a spectrum of likelihood? So that the conclusion would be that the drug is likely ineffective, and this statement, would be a "could be true" statement and not a "must be false" one? HELP
When I saw "It's not the case that some parrots are smart", I thought this could mean: some parrots are NOT smart. I then realized why my initial thought was wrong. We are trying to NEGATE the "some" intersection, meaning that we are trying to make it not possible to exist, yet to say "some parrots are NOT smart", is to allow the existence of "some parrots are smart". They do not contradict each other. We then fail the purpose of negating the "some" intersection
ok for some reason I thought "selective breeding for desired traits" for farm animals were done by nature so I chose E
so proud of myself for getting this!!!!!!!!!!