User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Joined
Jul 2025
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 172
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT137.S3.Q14
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
4 days ago

Could B have been right if it said human beings cannot achieve happiness if they live in a merchant society?

1
PrepTests ·
PT139.S2.P1.Q7
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Wednesday, Feb 18

@dancingqueen138 You have to know what de facto and economic segregation separately means

1
PrepTests ·
PT139.S2.P1.Q6
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Wednesday, Feb 18

@ElizabethBerenguer This is what confused me too. However, I think the "per capita" idea is more supported when you consider the recommendation at hand in direct comparison to the alternative of suburbs (i.e., people driving long distances to go to the store/do things). Because it would be unwarranted to assume the actual number of people in the area changes, and because we know that each person doesn't have to drive as far to get to a store under the new recommendation, this supports the idea that there must be more stores. Alternatively, how is it that everyone who once had to drive 20 minutes to get to a Walmart can suddenly walk to one without there being more of them?

1
PrepTests ·
PT120.S4.Q14
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Tuesday, Feb 17

@Wishmeluckokay While the conclusion does say it was someone else, it does not simply state it was someone else--the conclusion is saying the joker is someone OTHER THAN Miller. So it doesn't grant the conclusion imo because "it's someone else" INCLUDES the idea that it is NOT Miller

1
PrepTests ·
PT137.S4.Q10
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Saturday, Feb 14

I way over analyzed this question. Like another commenter pointed out, I thought that if public officials and CEOs are cooperating, they are inherently different from each other. However, this need not be the case, at least not in a way that does anything for the argument. A professor and TA can cooperate together. Does this mean they're different from each other? Maybe. Could they both be doing the same job? Maybe. Doesn't really tell us anything about whether they do different things.

I didn't like that B only focused on core responsibilities when other characteristics of CEOs were also mentioned. However, if you identify the assumption (that CEOs and public officials are the same because they do the same thing), you realize that all we need to do is show that maybe they don't do the same thing. B shows that, even if it doesn't kill the argument.

1
PrepTests ·
PT102.S2.Q24
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Feb 14

Answered this like a PSAr question instead of a NA question. I thought "never" was okay because the answer choice guaranteed the conclusion, but that's not what we were asked to do lololol

1
PrepTests ·
PT128.S4.P4.Q23
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Feb 07

I chose A at first because I could see the fine (judgement) being determined by input (age). However, I think B does a better job of analogizing--particularly because Passage A describes inputs as being impossible to calculate as it relates to judgement, which isn't really congruent with child or adult being one of two inputs that lead to a specific, cacluatatable judgement.

2
PrepTests ·
PT101.S1.P4.Q25
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Wednesday, Feb 04

I thought this question was interesting because the author doesn't really comment on the artistic merit of fakes, but does imply that the imposed categorization of original vs. "fake" in African art does not necessarily detract from that arts value by means of questioning the means of distinction.

1
PrepTests ·
PT103.S4.P4.Q23
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Monday, Feb 02

I was drawn to B and C originally because of my misunderstanding of the passage. The final paragraph discusses the implication of Stave's study on other studies. It is important to recognize that everything proceeding this discusses OTHER studies, and that subset of studies alone.

When the following lines said that Stave's revised her own work, I thought it meant her own study just discussed. However, it simply means that the implications of her current study have implications on other studies--including her own OTHER study. C likewise cannot support the current study because we are no longer talking about that specific "set."

I will be highlighting every use of the word "other" or "another" from now on lol

1
PrepTests ·
PT103.S4.P1.Q3
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Monday, Feb 02

@mhann007469 Yes. It's not saying "don't violate other people's rights" but rather "you only have rights because of the social contract that allows everyone to". More about personal responsibility

1
PrepTests ·
PT102.S1.P1.Q4
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Monday, Feb 02

@mayamalik I thought that for a second too, but I see that as the author moreso commenting on it being a legal problem/practical problem. I think if the author was outwardly against interception itself, there would be more tonal language imbedded in the examples the passage provided. I could see the author as sympathetic to the fact there is a problem, but I think it's too much a jump to extrapolate that to the actual employees imo, which the AC indicating the author is against interception would ask us to do

1
PrepTests ·
PT101.S4.P3.Q20
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Monday, Feb 02

@jkatz1488955 I thought the same too, but because "undiscovered species" wasn't mentioned for this hypothesis, I ruled it out.

1
PrepTests ·
PT118.S1.Q22
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Sunday, Feb 01

@ccmarkett I was confused on this too. My logic is maybe he's not responsible for the lack of rain, but that doesn't mean he's not responsible for the farm's yields.

1
PrepTests ·
PT143.S3.Q6
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Jan 31

@sergi0952 I almost eliminated the answer because of this too lol. But the argument said taste receptors are the source of habituation, so without the source of habituation it makes sense that there is no habituation

1
PrepTests ·
PT122.S2.Q4
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Saturday, Jan 31

@fyepes582 Just coming to say I appreciate both explanations for D! I think that's really helpful. It strengthens the idea that younger kids experience the effect by showing that older kids don't have it to the same degree. Isolating one specific subset of kids the conclusion is referring to specifically. But, as you and others mention, it also confirms findings in a similar group.

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S2.Q20
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Wednesday, Jan 21

@AbbigailWood Even if they got shorter over time on average, extinct and living can still have categorically short OPs and the argument still stands

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S2.Q20
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Wednesday, Jan 21

@adakid45 I think it's because extinct OPs can be shorter than living OPs in general yet extinct and living predators alike may still live on the more extreme side of short end of the spectrum.

If predators OPs are still significantly shorter than non predators OPs, even if they are getting even shorter over time, the logic of the argument as is isn't terribly affected. Collectively, animals might have moved shorter. But there can still be an objective short even with that change. Now if it said what is short (categorically, not a measure of degree) today was not short then, then yes I think it weakens

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S1.P3.Q18
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Sunday, Jan 18

Okay so I chose D at first because of the clause in the convention that says, "activities directed at UCH shall be authorized by the competent authority." My line of thinking was their response would go something like, "sale is state authorized via our agreement." However, even if company activities are authorized by the state, I think it's still an assumption to think the convention is wholly irrelevant.

Upon review, I payed closer attention to the clause stating "activities directed at UCH shall not adversely impact UCH more than is necessary for the objectives of the project," which aligns with AC C because sale is framed as paying for the project itself.

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S1.P3.Q17
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Jan 17

Maybe this is too granular, but I feel like "ownership" implies companies having control over the UHC as opposed to merely asserting grounds for compensation of its recovery. I don't think either passage necessarily focuses on whether companies have ownership--Passage A focuses more on claiming compensation and Passage B focuses on how you shouldn't compensated for something protected. Even Passage A says it's the state's property, so I don't think either passage ever distinguished ownership specifically

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S1.P2.Q9
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Jan 17

@JoshuaA1100 I thought D was too strong at first too, which is why I eliminated it. However, upon BR, I had to ask myself "do descriptivists actually believe that prescriptivists' efforts have no effect on human language?" The answer is yes. They believe that language is going to change anyways and believing you can stop that would be like "defying gravity." So, while it does read extreme upon first review, this is actually an accurate real of the descriptivists' claims.

I think the confusing part lies in the author conceding, as you pointed out, that "many attempts have failed." However, while this gives the impression of evidence in support of the claim that "prescriptivists efforts don't have an effect on human language," descriptivists believe that prescriptivists will never have an effect on human language. The fact that many attempts have failed is merely consistent with their view, but not evidence for their view when you take this into account.

1
PrepTests ·
PT157.S1.P1.Q4
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Edited Saturday, Jan 17

I interpreted "outgrowth" as undermining the significance of the SNCC. Now I realize that the word simply describes progression

I also interpreted the SNCC itself as historical context, hence why I chose C, but I now see that actual historical context would be more broad.

1
User Avatar
•

Edited tuesday, jan 06

AbbigailWood

relationship between NA, strengthening, weakening

While eliminating answer choices for strengthening questions, I have caught myself thinking, "this answer choice is the necessary assumption; it's too obvious for a strengthener." Yet, in fact, NA are one of the most effective ways to strengthen an argument!

However, I have also found myself choosing an answer choice for NA questions that calls out an assumption that would weaken an argument. Necessary assumptions don't merely weaken an argument when negated, they disprove an argument when negated.

So, in short, granting NA assumptions can strengthen an argument, and answer choices that merely weaken an argument can't really be the necessary assumption.

Interesting pattern in my thinking I've identified that helps me understand the relative strength of necessary assumptions in comparison to other assumptions. Understanding the NA as the bare minimum of what must be granted for the argument to make sense didn't capture this relationship to other question types for me at first.

That is all.

2
PrepTests ·
PT151.S4.Q22
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Saturday, Jan 03

@ylenep I thought this too, but I'm thinking red is most efficient and blue just produces more light? So if amount of light was kept constant red would still be more energy, though it's not kept constant

1
PrepTests ·
PT151.S2.Q23
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Friday, Jan 02

@dia2786 omg this helped me so much. i read "owns televisions" as "owns television shows," kind of fixing the collection issue

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S4.P2.Q9
User Avatar
AbbigailWood
Monday, Dec 29 2025

@quinntob Yes! I saw the capitalization and thought of it as a proper noun, as opposed to something descriptive. When you consider the fact that he coined them Barbarians himself though, it does make a bit more sense. That is why I got this question wrong.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?