Discussions

4009

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PrepTests ·

PT134.S1.Q8

4009

Sunday, Jul 31 2016

PT 64. S1. Q8; July 30

"BOTTOM UP THEORY"

Conclusion: the availability of edible plants is what primarily determines an ecosystems characteristics.

Premise: it determines how many herbivores the ecosystem can support which determines how many predators it can support.

Premise: This theory also hold that a reduction is predators will do nothing to the ecosystem.

Question Type: Weaken "Find evidence against the theory"

Answers:

A) Looks to support theory. Drops monkeys (herbivores) that were bred in captivity and they die off because there are not enough trees (edible plants) that can support the population.

B) This is the correct answer. This shows that the predators were determining the characteristics of the ecosystem and not the edible plants. The predators should have no affect on the herbivore species.

C) Forested ecosystem? Not sure what this has to do with edible plants supporting a herbivore population.

D) So a new species almost eliminated the native species? Cool, thanks for the info. Next.

This possible supports the theory? The pig population remains steady despite an increase in predatory activity. Regardless, who cares?

General · A little something to make you laugh!

4009

Wednesday, Aug 17 2016

This is awesome, it makes me feel as though I have friends again.

General · How does 7Sage compare to Blueprint, Testmasters, and PowerScore?

4009

Monday, May 16 2016

With a 7 sage account you get access to J.Y Ping & co. and that's what you'll need to score higher. Without an account you won't get the same access to these people! You will learn more than you thought possible and how to breakdown arguments into their most basic form. Additionally, you'll get to learn from a lot of very smart people. Jump in, the waters fine.

SH---> JY

/SSA--->/JY

----

/SSA--->/SH

The logic checks out, looks like you should sign up!

General · Public Interest Interest

4009

Wednesday, May 11 2016

Sounds very interesting, I'm in!

General · Yeah, son!

4009

Monday, May 09 2016

Congrats and keep grinding! I agree with Tane256, don't cap yourself, keep striving to be better. Best of luck!

General

•

Tuesday, Aug 09 2016

4009

Science Stims in LR

Hey everyone,

Like many others, I do not come from a science background and therefore I find that I really struggle with Science passages/questions. I have been able to improve this in the RC section by practicing the memory method and focusing on becoming a more active reader. What I really struggle with is the detailed science questions that frequently appear in the LR section. I often find myself losing focus and then having to re-read or spending far too much time trying to figure out what exactly the argument is trying to say. I have tried to apply the same methods that have helped me in RC, but to no avail. I know skipping is a recommended strategy, but at some point I need to take on my fear, don't I? My goal score is 170+ and I am continuously losing points on these types of questions.

Has anybody else come across this problem; someone that has recommendation for me on how I can improve upon my embarrassingly inadequate science cred.

Thanks!

General · Osgoode here I come!

4009

Sunday, May 08 2016

This is an amazing story! Huge congratulations to you and all of your hard work. Now go crush Law School!

General · Highest PT score to-date!!!!

4009

Saturday, Aug 06 2016

Wow, that is very impressive. I too have found a jump when I moved to newer tests. I have found the jump was mainly in LR/LG. I think that is because the curriculum and the books I've read have trained me better for the newer sections, I didn't get tripped up on weird games or outdated question types. Regardless, that is a great PT score and you should be very proud. Keep at it!

General · Another Question from the N00b!

4009

Friday, Aug 05 2016

Strongly advise against jumping straight into PT's. I am certainly not the most experienced on this site, but I did make the mistake of beginning PT's long before I was ready. I read the Powerscore books and then jumped right into the deep end-- and boy did I drown. The result was that I burned through an entire book of 10 PT's and didn't improve as much as I should have. If I could start over again, I would begin with the 7sage curriculum and ease my way into PT's while drilling early LG/LR. It's great that you have a helpful resources, but unfortunately for you that resource is not allowed to sit next to you while you write the test. You need to ensure that you are the one that can find your mistakes and then correct them. If you have someone constantly telling you where you went wrong, how can you expect to fix that mistake the next time you come across a similar problem. In my opinion, keep working before you PT. Do your curriculum and prepare using early material. Once you start to see consistency in your approach, then start to PT. Best of luck!

LSAT · Official December LSAT Discussion Thread

4009

Saturday, Dec 03 2016

I had 3 LR sections and one of them was brutally difficult. It had question about a shipment of stawberries on Friday being bad on Sunday. Anyone confirm or deny this section is experimental?

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q15

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

PT 64. S3. Q15; July 30

"Long-Term Economic Advisor"

Conclusion: Our city council should be praised for hiring a long-term economic development advisor.

Premise: In hiring this advisor, the council made an investment that is likely to have a big payoff in several years

Premise: Other cities in this region that have devoted resources to economic development have earned large returns on this investment.

Question Type: Weaken "Most Weakens the argument"

Analysis: We are looking to attack the support for the argument that our city council made a smart move hiring the economic advisor. They say it's because it because the investment will payoff in several years and other cities around us have done the same.

We need to show that the investment hasn't always paid off (something take we haven't considered), or that the cities around us are not similar, so the comparison is not a good one. The argument attempts to throw us off with an analogy to motorcycles. Watch out for this trap in the answer choices.

Mistake: Got caught up with the long, drawn out argument and allowed the context to fool me. Break it down to its simple form and recognize why the author is trying to sell us on his position. This is a prescriptive argument, he is telling us we should believe something. We need to know why.

Answers:

A) This is what we were worried about. Some cars break down? What does this add to our argument… Complete red herring, move on!

B) This is correct. We have two support structures and this attacks one of those. If the cities are not comparable to ours, then we shouldn't be looking at them as a model for success. This weakens our argument.

C) Most motorists? Back to this sad tune. This is trying to get us to focus on the wrong part of the stimulus. The author is not using the motorists to support is argument.

D) Higher salaries? So what!? They bring us massive financial returns, which their salaries are potential a fraction of, this does nothing for us.

E) First few years? This doesn't matter to us, we want to be smart and look at the long run. That is what the entire argument is based around, the author doesn't care about the short-term, so neither should we.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q14

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

PT 64. S3. Q14; July 30

"Government removing vexing social ills"

Conclusion: Arnott's conclusion that says by making fundamental changes in the government, we can eliminate our most vexing social ills is false.

Premise: Depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the best interest of the public-- which it does not.

Question Type: Flaw "Most accurately represents the flaw"

Analysis: The argument says that Arnott's claim cannot be right simply because it overlooks a major issue in his argument. A subtle distinction here is the sweeping statement that is being made. The subscriber is saying that "this conclusion simply cannot be true!" only because of what Arnott said. The shift is that he is no longer attacking just Arnott's conclusion, but the conclusion in general. Arnott's conclusion may not be properly drawn, but that doesn't exclude somebody else from making a strong argument for fundamental government changes. This is where the argument attempts to trick you.

Mistake: Missed the subtle shift in the argument and could not see how the subscriber is not allowed to discredit the entire argument just because one person made a poor argument for it being true.

Example: "The Yankees are the best baseball team because they have won the most world series."

"We cannot judge how good a baseball team currently is based off of their past performance, therefore this conclusion cannot be true."

The Yankees (insert favourite baseball team here) could very well be leading the league in wins, making them the best team. Just because one argument is not strong, does not mean we can refute the entire conclusion.

Answers:

A) This is correct. They are telling us that we cannot disregard a conclusion just because one bad argument was made in favour of it.

B) Guarantee removal? The author is argument that this cannot be done.

C) This is attacking the wrong part of the argument. What do we care if an assumption is true? We want to prove that the conclusion can still be true even if one assumption is not.

D) Distorts the opponents argument? I don't see where it does that.

E) Don’t think so. It is not equivocating.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S1.Q23

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

"The context of LOVE"

Conclusion: In the context of marital vows, nobody should take love to refer to a feeling towards someone else.

Premise: If love refers to a feeling then the "until death do us part" makes no sense. Why? Because feeling's are not within anyone's control and a promise to do something that is not within your control doesn't make sense!

Assumption: We're making a big assumption that the marriage vow has to make sense. Also, taking the vow way too literally, dude.

Question Type: Sufficient Assumption "Conclusion follows logically if what is assumed"

Searching For: Tell me that the marriage vow has to make sense! If you're going to make a promise during a wedding ceremony, it should make sense!

Answers:

A) None of our feeling's are within our control? What is life? But seriously, this doesn't help.

B) People shouldn't make promises that aren't within their control. We are trying to prove that love in this context is not a feeling, so this answer choice is irrelevant.

C) Tricky. This is a necessary assumption, I think. Love must be able to be taken in another context or this argument is ruined, but still not what we are looking for. Show me promises must make sense!

D) This is correct. The double negative can fool you, but this answer choice is saying " promises should only be interpreted in ways that make sense". If this is true, then love cannot possibly refer to a feeling in marriage vows!

E) Keeping promises? Good rule of thumb, but not helpful to our argument.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S1.Q22

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

"Heavy Metals in Sewage Sludge"

Conclusion: Bacteria's exposure to heavy metals in sewage sludge has promoted a resistance to antibiotics.

Major Premise: They have also developed a strong resistance to antibiotics.

Premise: Because heavy metals are normally concentrated in sewage sludge the bacteria that have survived the treatment process have evolved the ability to resist heavy metal poisoning.

Question Type: Strengthen "Most Strengthens"

Analysis: This is a causation question. They are telling us that because the surviving bacteria were exposed to heavy metals and are now somehow resistant the antibiotics, that this was caused by the treatment process.

We need to find something that says other bacteria have not been found to be resistant to antibiotics. We need to make this this only possible cause for the argument to be stronger.

Answers:

A) Bacteria that are not resistant? We are talking about the bacteria that are; next.

B) This is correct. This is a near perfect answer. All things being equal, similar bacteria that has not been through this process is not resistant to antibiotics. Closing our assumption off to criticism. This was a tough stimulus to get through!

C) Trap answer. This reverses our conclusion. Who cares it contributes to their resistance to heavy-metal poisining. This is not what we're trying to prove.

D) Significant concentrations of antibiotics? So they aren't resistant? This doesn't help.

E) This probably weakens or conclusion. So other bacteria that did not survive the process are resistant? Keep me away from this.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S1.Q20

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

"Video King Frequent Viewer Club"

Conclusion: Pat rented less than 10 movies this month but still received the discount coupon at the Walnut Lane Location.

Context: Video King has a frequent viewers club that receives "special discount" code.

Premise: Members of the club can get the coupon at the last place they rented (if more than 10 videos in the last month) or they can get it at the main street location (if rented less than ten videos).

Analysis: Pat has rented less than ten videos this month, yet she did not have to go to the main street location to receive her discount coupon. The stimulus did not mention whether or not you had to be a member to receive a coupon, therefore we can infer that Pat was not a member but received this coupon anyways. (By the way, this sounds like a stupid rewards program.)

Mistake: I mistakenly took Walnut Street to be the main street location. They are not. We need to infer that Pat is not a member and still received the coupon.

Answers:

A) The only people? What about the members that last rented at the main street location? Next.

B) We don't know this from the information provided and it doesn't specify that it was this month. Next.

C) We can assume that this is true, but Pat does not fit this description. Next.

D) This is correct. Pat is not a member yet she still received the coupon. This is exactly what we are looking for.

E) What? When did it say anything about Pat and Main street??

PrepTests ·

PT134.S1.Q13

4009

Monday, Aug 01 2016

"Joggers Stretching"

Conclusion: Stretching before jogging does not help prevent injuries.

Premise: Two groups of joggers used as a sample, one that stretched before running and one that did not.

Premise: It was reported that both groups experienced the same number of injuries while jogging.

Question Type: Weaken "what would most weaken"

Looking for: Something along the lines that the joggers who stretched were more prone to injuries in the first place, or something more general like the two groups were not at the same risk. We want to prove that stretching did have some affect on the one group.

Answers:

A) Rate of injuries was lower than other people? What? This doesn't tell us anything about our stretching joggers group.

B) Close. It does tempt us with joggers that were previously injured, but it doesn't tell us anything about the stretching aiding injury prevention, just that stretching was more difficult for them. Next.

C) I left the answer as a contender the first time around. This is a red herring, though, it doesn't tell us about the stretching group which is vital to weaken the support of this argument. It doesn't matter if 99/100 injuries are not due to stretching, we want to prove that stretching helped the stretching group.

D) This is correct. The stretching group is a group compromised of joggers that are more prone to injury. If they are more prone to injury and they had the same injury rate as people that are not prone to injury, then clearly the stretching worked for this group of people.

E) Certain forms of exercise? It does help? This answer is all over the place. WHO CARES.