- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
In J.Y's explanation: How can David both not make the connection of Carla statements and simultaneosuly use carla statements to disprove B.
@SereneQuietRelationship and the audacity to say that it requires no outside knowledge
@PowerUp_Tutoring But... he says "even if you are right about the benefiical effects of research", he conceding how does that not indicate that he recognizes Carla remarks?
@SXB2420582 it is the bain of my existence. Especially because of how difficult it can be to properly interpret the quesiton. I think the test is so hard for people because its so vauge.
@tylerarmstrong318 Also buying decisions made on the spot does not mean that they buy it!
if the amount of funding was non-exixitent before then that explains why even with an increase in funding its still isnt enough. FUCK THE LSAT WRITERS THIS IS BULLSHIT
C trades on percents v amounts flaw. Even tho the percentage of books intended for beginners was less than cookbooks intended for pros doesnt mean sales were lower.
actual versus current? Arent those different? C says: Actual human demand we dont know what that is, the explanation says current human demand. What is actually the demand versus the current demand are seperate. If anything: actual demand cannot exceed current demand because if it does then how can a solution require reducing demand if actual human demand exceeds supply?
Ive done tons of RC passages, and I find myself stuck on the same two things every time. Either I miss an important detail that turns into a question or I find myself just not remembering the right things because of a poor paragraph summary. For me, Im loosing faith in the idea that you dont have to understand the whole passage. Ive found myself lost on questions simply because I didnt have a strong enough understanding. The idea of needing only 70%-80% understanding seems to be arbitrary and subjective.
What are some strategies that you guys use? I try to do the short summary but never seem to actually capture the right things in my summaries. Untimed I do well because I can re-read and parse through dense text. I dont struggle with RC in any other test, as I dont have to read something in 4 minutes.
Got this question wrong because they removed the highlight ability, and the second paragraph had super long sentneces.
My reasoning was as follows: Taken literally: High above the present and everyday implies beyond day to day reality. I thought this meant that it encouraged fantasy? Therefore, A?
I realize now that I was misinterpreting how A was written. Its not written to highlight a point made by position 1, it written to state that position 1 is correct which cant be true. I had an inkling that it couldnt be A and B for the reasons J.Y explained, but I disregarded it.
why is there math involved on this test. I want to be a lawyer not a fucking economist
@RSD Your reasoning for B was exactly how I looked at it aswell. Its really remarkable how LSAT testmakers can play on such subtle real-world biases
Ive been curious as to how many hours I spend studying. Sometimes I time myself, and sometimes I forget. I think it would be helpful to see. Maybe next to analytics it could be a graph of time spent, to help people ensure their weekly study goals.
The justification for D says we dont know if this occurs during ice ages but how is it established that the volcanos coincide with ice ages?
I got this right, but I didnt get a chance to do this timed as I only made it to question 23. Heres what Im thinking, if im wrong please let me know:
This is a causation argument
The author discusses how premature babies are more likely to have low birth rates.
Then the author moves to discussing how mothers who recevied adequate prenatal care are less likely to have low birth weight babies.
The author concludes: adequate prenatal care leads to less risk of low birth weight. Seems pretty airtight. Couldnt really prephrase except knowing we are trying to weaken causation
B.) if mothers who give birth to premature babies (who have low birth weight) are classified often as being indeuate prenatal care despite not proof, then it artiifcally enchances the idea that indequate prenatal care leads to low birth weigh. And therefore artifically and without warrant proves the causation true.
Does this make sense?
I totally misread this! Wow! The ambigious phrase "We are the measure of all things" leads to two different interpreations proving the conclusion. That was not obvious at ALL
I think what confused me is that system costing more to run seemed logically connected to fuel efficency but its not. I guess something can be more fuel effeicent but maybe cost more?
Your not starting over, your resuming! I also didnt score where I wanted to, but im trying to use it as motivation. If your scoring in your desired score range on PTs thats a good sign! Just keep sharpening your skills or maybe try to hone in on areas that you know are weaker.
@adadams251 ive come to the conclusion that once you get in the 170's plus, you just cant understand why some people choose an answer. Theres something that 170+ scorers have unlocked that literally makes them almost robotic with questions where the other AC's are just astronomically wrong. I feel like 7 Sage could benefit from having a few 150 and 160 scorers explain why they picked an answer because the explanations he gives can sometimes be patronizing
@RobertCarlson Im going to be honest this seems way to complex of an explanation.Heres a simple explanation for why E is right:
"vested interest" no matter if its for or against the power plant is bad because its biased and therefore not a good argument. I didnt make that connection until now, hope this helps.