- Joined
- Jul 2026
- Subscription
- Coach
Admissions profile
Discussions
after reading question 5 about a 100 times, i still can't understand why E was the correct answer. I barely even was able to know why the actual and blind answers i chose were the right answer. At least i knew i had it wrong so i spent more time on the ones i got wrong but i could not understand that block of text for the life of me. I think its just what the words even are saying. I get the fundamentals. Identify the parts of the argument but that does literally nothing when you are supposed to figure out which premise of the 5 is most suitable if you don't know what the heck the block of text is even saying.
20/20. Given that i was not perfect at the in-course exercises this surprises me. Guess they worked.
What's sad is in the first test i got it right and i got it wrong in the blind review simply because i thought this was one of the answers i got wrong given that answer A was slightly plausible. Saj.
I'm beginning my LSAT study journey. I planned on taking the LSAT in January but I don't really know much about when the proper time would be to take it if I want to shoot for submitting my application for law school start Fall of 2027. I assume applications are submitted in early to mid year. How long does it take to get your score back? My goal is the bare minimum, i ain't trying to get into ivy league so i only want to take this thing once.
I understand what an assumption is and all that right, but what if you have no idea what the subject of the premise is i.e. a tiger and whether or not they are a mammal at all? For example, say the premise is changed to state "Black mambas are very aggressive and dangerous to people." For those who don't know, a black mamba is a snake and not a mammal replace that subject with any other non-mammal that's dangerous and the assumption is impossible to know if you have no background knowledge on the subject animal; or maybe its just a false premise and you have no idea that the subject animal is or isn't dangerous. Lets say a tree frog. "Tree frogs are very aggressive and dangerous to people." What if you don't know whether this is true or not due to lack of prior knowledge about tree frogs. In this latter case both the premise is false and the conclusion, though true, is not supported in any way by the false premise.
My question here is how am i supposed to know the assumptions or connections if i know nothing about tigers?
if you use pen and paper to write down if A -> B; /B -> /A there is only one clear answer. 2 other answers used "must" which implies a different lawgic translation. 1 used either or, and the others were easy to eliminate.