Discussions

40947

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Study Groups · PT88 BR with J.Y. on Nov. 1 - 16, 2 - 5pm ET

40947

Wednesday, Oct 30 2019

Glad that it's recorded - will not be able to attend in-person due to work. Thank you, J.Y.

General · PT 66 - Reading Comprehension Blind Review

40947

Sunday, Jun 23 2019

I think the session info for these is typically pinned in the announcement category of the discussion tab. J.Y. said that he was considering going over one of the sections in pt 67 next week.

General · PT 66 - Reading Comprehension Blind Review

40947

Sunday, Jun 23 2019

That was awesome! Thank you.

PrepTests ·

PT129.S2.Q25

40947

Friday, Apr 19 2019

Honestly, tf is this question? What if there is a federal law that requires blue-eyed people contributing any amount to register with the city council? The law of the city of Weston can be as limited as it wants to be - that doesn't mean there aren't alternative conditions that would trigger the requirement. Without the BS assumption that we are expected to make, C looks like an incorrect negation. "of the city of Weston" should not even be in the first sentence.

I'm shocked that LSAC got away with this Q...

PrepTests ·

PT149.S1.Q10

40947

Thursday, May 16 2019

Seems like another poorly-written question by LSAC. How do we know that the statement "seems to unlikely to provide camouflage" does not apply to all animal species? It sounds to me like the authors want us to interpret the idea that B-W coloration seems unlikely to US, humans, to be effective - some animals supposedly do not share the same view (quite literally lol). Answer choice C relies on this idea.

My issue with this question is that I'm not convinced that AC A does not resolve the discrepancy, and I'm not sure why exactly we have to tie this animal species's survival to an adaptation. Who says that adaptation is necessary at all? Darwinists don't @ me. Why can't it be luck or a circumstance that allows a species to survive? Maybe an animal species lived throughout thousands of years with zero useful adaptations and without the need to acquire one, and now are simply so large in numbers that they have become unstoppable.

Perhaps I'm understanding this incorrectly, but the discrepancy to me is the idea that an animal species can survive predation while having very few or zero useful adaptations. Also, I know that AC A requires assuming, but so does AC C, and arguably to at least the same extent.

In the end, I think think how you interpret this question affects whether you get the point, and this is absolutely not the kind of standard that I would expect from LSAC.

LSAT · Flower game victims I need support

40947

Monday, Oct 14 2019

I feel ya

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q16

40947

Wednesday, Mar 13 2019

I'm still not convinced that AC B is the Necessary Assumption, and I cannot find where my reasoning falls short. If something negated weakens but does not destroy the conclusion, is it still one of the necessary assumptions? Perhaps negating this AC really does destroy the conclusion, but I'm unable to see how it does so.

At first I thought this AC was a Sufficient Assumption similar to "if something is aesthetically pleasing in relative terms, said thing is aesthetically pleasing in absolute terms". Upon closer read I realized that we cannot equate "not aesthetically displeasing" to "aesthetically pleasing".

Then there is the issue of most of participants' responses vs most of the child paintings on which these responses were based - I'm not sure I'm able to reconcile these two.

Any #help is appreciated.

LSAT · PT87.S3.Q20 - Although allowing coal mining

40947

Friday, Jul 12 2019

Had to think about what you said in your response for a while, but it makes sense. AC B most certainly does not offer "direct" evidence, and we actually need the sub-conclusion to give support to the main one. I got caught up in this question's word usage which made me suspicious of what the top two answer choices actually meant. Whatever the strength of AC A is, it is evidence.

Thank you.

PrepTests ·

PT151.S2.Q17

40947

Tuesday, Dec 11 2018

Hey, J.Y., I think the disqualifying issue with the AC E is the fact we don't know anything about the state of the other variable given to us by the stimulus: the direction of wind in relation to the transmission lines. For all we know, it's possible that windy days carry wind currents that always blow parallel to the transmission lines, and calm days carry wind currents that always blow across the transmission lines. If that's the case, I think it would be wrong to definitively claim that windy days provide better cooling/greater electrical load limit.

I totally understand and sympathize with the reasoning that you used to eliminate this answer choice, as language precision is of utmost most importance on a test such as LSAT. However, this does feel a bit like going too deep into semantics - it ultimately comes down to whether you always view the word "maximum" in its absolute form with global applicability, or whether you are open to the idea of local/instanced meaning of this word.

Just my two cents 😁.

LSAT · PT87.S3.Q20 - Although allowing coal mining

40947

Wednesday, Jul 10 2019

I can only see the first clause of the last sentence as evidence for the sub-conclusion if I make the aforementioned assumption; otherwise, the first clause sounds like a random fact that has no bearing on the strength of the sub-conclusion. After reading the sub-conclusion, asking "why?", and then reading the first clause, I am not convinced that it does anything unless I make the connection - once again, the aforementioned assumption.

Not the least of my concerns is the word "direct": if it's the only evidence presented (supposedly) to support the sub-conclusion, why pose it as "direct"? Is this a trick LSAT uses to mess with people?

Lastly and most importantly, what's the distinction between evidence vs. direct evidence vs. premise/support? Does evidence present support on its own merit or does it need to be applied to have such effect?

Very much appreciate it btw.

LSAT

•

Wednesday, Jul 10 2019

40947

PT87.S3.Q20 - Although allowing coal mining

I have an issue with AC A because I don't see how the argument's sub-conclusion draws from the stated claim. It seems to me that there is a need for an unstated assumption - something along the lines of "heavy industrial activity rids a region of its natural beauty". The part of the claim about dependence on natural beauty is a necessary condition for the operation of many local businesses. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the claim to be "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, doesn't this sub-conclusion have to invoke the notion of how natural beauty would be tarnished in the presence of industrial activity? Without this notion, there could be many reasons why coal mining would force the majority of local businesses to close, one of which being (perhaps) the more lucrative or stable business opportunity of starting your own coal mine.

Also, it seems to me that the same unstated assumption mentioned above, needed (in my opinion) to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, can analogously be used to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's main conclusion: if coal mining harms natural beauty, then it seems reasonable to expect that coal mining would reduce the number of jobs since many local businesses depend on natural beauty.

Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-20/

LSAT · PT87.S4.G4 - A charity is assigning volunteers to work

40947

Tuesday, Jul 09 2019

Game 1 - 3.8 minutes

Game 2 - 3.7 minutes

Game 3 - 10.7 minutes

Game 4 - 16.6 minutes

I knew I was going to see ownage-tier games from LSAT writers later in the section after I finished the the first two quick lol. Made a stupid mistake in Game 3 which added 2-3 minutes to it, but damn, Game 4 had me sweating. I made the "L must be on 6" inference, and knew that M could not be on both 4 and 5, but didn't push these far enough to get to the PNQ "combo" - fuck me. This led me to having to draw out possible scenarios and cross out the ones that violated rules. All in all, could have been an easier time had I pushed myself to spend more time trying to connect the rules.

4.4m for 20 and 5.5m for 23 alone. Properly salty lol.