Discussions

23wangc301

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · Remembering how to narrow in on main points

23wangc301

Friday, Oct 28 2022

Read for structure in LR and RC. This will help you get to the crux of whatever you're reading without getting too muddled in the details. Also, when you read for structure you will more easily remember where to find such details if you need. Remember your basics such as referential phrasing, descriptors, etc. That will also help you parse out the structure.

0

Study Groups · Free Tutoring! For those trying to reach mid 160s

23wangc301

Monday, May 30 2022

Interested!

0

Study Groups · Study group for June 2022 Exam

23wangc301

Wednesday, Feb 23 2022

interested!

0

Study Groups · Best Study group ever made for April 2022/June 2022 LSAT!

23wangc301

Saturday, Jan 22 2022

interested! please let us know if the group is still open!

0

Study Groups · Discord for April 2022 LSAT/June 2022 LSAT

23wangc301

Friday, Jan 21 2022

am interested as well, could you kindly provide a working link if invites are still open?

0

General · Using PT's 40-50 to Simulate Post-Flex Experimental Section?

23wangc301

Friday, Dec 17 2021

Thank you so much!

0

•

Friday, Dec 17 2021

23wangc301

Using PT's 40-50 to Simulate Post-Flex Experimental Section?

Hi all,

I'm looking to simulate post-flex LSAT (3 sections with 1 experimental and a 10-minute break). I plan to start my PT's in the 60's by selecting "Simulate Flex" so that there would be 3 sections, and then creating a separate "experimental section" using random sections from PT's 40-50. Occasionally I will take the "full" 4 section PT from 60+ to simulate the experimental section as a second LR section.

For the scoring, I'll just use the scores accumulated from each 3-section PT and not include the experimental section.

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions about this? Should I do the experimental section with another group of PT's (e.g., 50-60), or is there another better way?

Thank you all for your help!

0

Study Groups · Taking June 2022 LSAT - Study group anyone?

23wangc301

Saturday, Dec 04 2021

I'm interested! 🙂

0

LSAT · Increasing LR

23wangc301

Friday, Nov 26 2021

@rdhallan331 Could you kindly share your checklist with me as well? Thank you so much!

0

PrepTests ·

PT114.S3.P2.Q12

23wangc301

Wednesday, Nov 03 2021

I might be too late in responding to your question but just in case it might help you or someone else, here's my rationale for eliminating (C).

When (C) and (E) are up against one another, it really becomes the battle of strongest weakener. With (C), there's an assumption we must make that "socially inappropriate" = "no longer applies in the face of evolving social standards or practices." I think that's reasonable, but it's still something that stood out to me. The other thing with C is that it only tells me "Some socially inappropriate legal decisions are thrown out after citizens voice their disapproval." Essentially, it tells me that the legal system sometimes uses institutional power. This is entirely consistent with author's contention that the legal system contains a significant degree of intellectual authority.

Now let's look at (E). (E) tells us judges rarely rectify faulty reasoning when reviewing preview legal decisions. This is in direct opposition to our author's argument. Author's argument claims that judges do rectify faulty or socially inappropriate decisions, so therefore there is a significant degree of intellectual power. (E) gets in between the premise and conclusion, and says "Nah, ~intellectual."

When I compare what (C) says ("institutional") versus what (E) says ("~intellectual"), (E) wins in being the stronger counter to author's contention ("intellectual").

3

General · Positivity Thread: Speak your desired LSAT score into existence!

23wangc301

Tuesday, Oct 05 2021

I'm going to get above 170 on the LSAT!

Let's go!

6

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q13

23wangc301

Wednesday, Jun 16 2021

Mature white pines intercept almost all the sunlight that shines on them. They leave a deep a litter that dries readily and they are so tall that little light reaches the floor. For this reason white pines can't regenerate in their own shade. Therefore, when in a dense forest a stand of trees consists of nothing but mature white pines, _.

(C) Competition for sunlight will result in trees dying and the stand becoming thinner - Wrong. We are told the limited sunlight means white pines can't regenerate but that doesn't necessitate that limited sunlight will cause trees to die and the stand becoming thinner. The "stand becoming thinner" especially does not logically follow.

(A) The age difference between the trees is not greater than the amount of time it takes for a tree to mature - Makes sense. Once the trees are mature they are so tall that sunlight won't grow through for the other trees. In a forest full of mature white pines, this makes sense.

0

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q25

23wangc301

Wednesday, Jun 16 2021

M: The drug will have various effects on the pts' bodies which will let us know which pts got the drug and which got the placebo. Therefore it is impossible to perform a double-blind study for this new drug.

E: You are assuming you know what the outcome of the study will be. Therefore you can't say it is impossible to perform a double-blind study at this point.

Prephrase: Outcome? M was simply saying how the drug will cause various effects and so he will know which pts got the drug and which got the placebo. M didn't say anything about the outcome, which is the efficacy of the drug. Just that they will know who is in which group.

(C) - wrong - E's assumption of M's statement is that E thinks M knows the outcome of the experiment, not that M assumes the placebo will have no effect. The outcome means efficacy of the drug. E is concerned with the efficacy of the drug (does the drug work) and (C) is concerned with whether or not the placebo produces any effects (does the placebo produce any side effects).

(D) - correct - E assumes that M's "various effects" refers to the outcome of the study aka the efficacy of the drug which is determined by its therapeutic effects. But M could very well just be talking about the side effects which is why he subsequently said they would know who is in which group. M never said anything about knowing the outcome of the study. That is something E came up with.

4

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q21

23wangc301

Sunday, Jun 13 2021

I'm confused about whether the "or" in AC (A) is supposed to be inclusive. #help

That being said, here's why I think (A) is wrong:

If we say Wirth would agree with (A) because he states all efforts to identify a gene has failed, then (A) is wrong because Chang says he doesn't dispute Wirth's evidence. They are in agreement about this statement, not disagreement.

If we interpret the "or" to be inclusive, then (A) is automatically out because Wirth doesn't have an opinion on it.

6

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q5

23wangc301

Saturday, May 22 2021

Barnes isn't really interested between the possible causal relationship between complex duties and higher salaries. Rather, he/she states that each individual idea is too high for inexperienced workers and therefore ought to be reduced.

(B) puts forth a possible causal relationship/justification for why one of the idea (salary) is high (due to complex duties), but this is not the assumption Barnes makes. It is unfounded and not necessary.

0

PrepTests ·

PT109.S4.Q11

23wangc301

Thursday, May 20 2021

Andy has never used english to sing the national anthem.

Therefore, singing the national anthem is unique to english-speakers.

Correct (C): The national anthem can only be expressed in english.

This is necessary. If the national anthem can be expressed in non-english languages, the conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

Incorrect (B): Andy is incapable of thinking in english.

This is not necessary. Even if Andy could think in english, Andy may not know the song. Maybe it is unique to english-speakers. Argument not wrecked.

Valid Argument → Necessary Assumption

~~Necessary Assumption~~ → ~~Valid Argument~~

4

PrepTests ·

PT101.S3.Q25

23wangc301

Thursday, Apr 15 2021

"ambiguiby" hahaha

1

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q14

23wangc301

Wednesday, Apr 14 2021

The task is to find the flaw in the argument. That means we attack the support structure between the premises and the conclusion. Our premises are as follows: Yuge testifies that before setting, the moon was full enough to provide considerable light; the robbery was conclusively shown to occur before the moon set. The conclusion is therefore, Klein had sufficient light to make a reliable identification. So just because there was a full moon that could provide considerable light, Klein was able to make a reliable identification? What if there were other factors or conditions which made it so Klein couldn't reliably identify the perpetrator even with a full moon? What if it was a foggy or cloudy night, or the perpetrator was in the shadows?

That is what (E) gets at. We have to focus on the task and flaw at hand, and not get distracted by anything else.

(B) and (C) are time-sink distractors. These answers try to add new information to ruin the argument, but they are either wholly irrelevant or just doesn't fit our task. Our task is to identify the flaw in the support structure between the premise and conclusion.

(D) is an answer that tries to attack the premise. This is not what we are supposed to do. We attack the support structure, not the premise. Second, Yuge doesn't say whether or not there was enough light. He says the moon was full enough to provide considerable light. Even if (D) was true, and Yuge couldn't have known whether the light was sufficient without being there, this has no bearing on our argument that the full moon could have still allowed Klein to make a reliable identification. It's not our argument flaw.

1

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q25

23wangc301

Wednesday, Mar 10 2021

Principle: Handwriting analysis will be a legitimate courtroom tool for character assessment.

The class to which this principle is restricted/applied: When such a board is established, licensed practitioners

7

PrepTests ·

PT111.S4.Q25

23wangc301

Wednesday, Mar 10 2021

Not gonna lie, "yo dude I think you're overlooking this thing" really helped to elucidate the abstract phrasing of (A). LOL thanks!

2

PrepTests ·

PT113.S3.Q12

23wangc301

Wednesday, Mar 03 2021

"I don't know, a flying squirrel -- I don't even think the flying squirrel flies."

I don't know why this was so funny to me, but JY's explanations and tone of voice gives me life while I study.

2

PrepTests ·

PT113.S3.Q12

23wangc301

Wednesday, Mar 03 2021

Also, here's a deeper dive into argument analysis just for fun:

Other people's argument is a causal argument: Capacity for flight came from marine animals because feathers are developed from scales.

Author's argument: Wrong. Bats don't have scales, and other non-marine animals have scales.

"Wrong" is the conclusion, supported by premises/evidence that weakens the first argument.

"Bats don't have scales" demonstrates effect without cause. "Other non-marine animals have scales" introduces a potential third factor. These are both ways to provide evidence against, or weaken, a causal claim.

0

PrepTests ·

PT102.S3.Q21

23wangc301

Thursday, Dec 24 2020

Here are my thoughts on why (D) is wrong:

(D) says modern poets frequently cite and comment on Aristotle's Poetics. But does citing and commenting on something warrant an interest in it? Think college research and assignments. I can cite and comment on something but not be interested in it.

Even if I am amicable to (D) and changed it to "Modern poets are interested in Aristotle's Poetics", this is still just a correlation. Maybe that's why Homer was translated, maybe not. Which one came first - the modern poets' interest in Poetics or the translation of Homer? (D) doesn't do anything to support our argument that [Conclusion] medieval poets weren't interested in Aristotle's Poetry [Premise] because Homer wasn't translated. We would still need to make many assumptions for (D) to give support.

0

PrepTests ·

PT109.S4.Q24

23wangc301

Thursday, Dec 17 2020

Conclusion: Taxpayer's plan to stimulate economic activity by refunding money is bad.

Premise: The budget needs to be balanced, so if we refund $600m then we need to create new taxes or we need to fire workers.

(1) Taxpayers will have the $600m to spend but will get taxed $600m again (net 0), or

(2) Workers will have $600m to spend but they don't have an income (net 0),

but there will be no resulting net increase from this idea of spending to stimulate the economy.

Argument: No net increase, so taxpayer's plan to refund money is bad.

Our task is to weaken this argument.

(D) Instead of refunding the money, we stimulate the economy by redirecting money to new construction projects and creating jobs around the province.

How does this weaken the argument? Instead of addressing the point of how op's plan can be good, it just gives us another plan which may or may not even stimulate the economy. That is another assumption we need to make that these new projects and jobs around the province will garner back the $600m.

(E) We can refund the money and keep our workers by saving $600m in costs.

This weakens the argument because it shows how the op's plan can be executed and still result in net increase.

4

PrepTests ·

PT103.S3.Q24

23wangc301

Thursday, Dec 17 2020

Whole-to-part flaw.

Stimulus says over the years, the average price of cars in relation to income has increased. That means both numbers increased. It concludes from this correlation that "the average amount an individual pays for a car (in relation to income) has increased."

But can we really use a statistic about a general average to conclude something about individual average?

(E) tells us individual sales make a smaller proportion of new car sales, opening the possibility that our conclusion may not be absolute and that the general average was driven up by another subset/proportion of people.

Consider this: Throughout the years, the average amount of people who get into car accidents have increased. Therefore, the average individual young adult drives more recklessly now than they did before.

Can we use a statistic about a general average to conclude something about a general subset/proportion?

In this case, (E) would state something like this: "The average individual young adult constitutes a smaller proportion of people getting into car accidents than they did before." This opens up the possibility that our conclusion is not absolute, and perhaps it is another subset/proportion of people getting into accidents and therefore driving up the general average.

1