Subscription pricing
1 step forward, 2 steps back it seems
PT Questions
BaseerJoya1
- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Core
BaseerJoya1
Tuesday, Dec 23 2025
@delaneycv Its more to test whether or not you actually know the answer or simply guessed it
BaseerJoya1
Monday, Dec 22 2025
@priscillasoliz yeah i assume the LSAT writers know this. That's why they provide enough context and the word cultures right next to it to give us the idea that epochs would be similar to areas/nations/places. That's my assumtpion
BaseerJoya1
Wednesday, Dec 17 2025
@osaieh Read Trent's words carefully. He is assuming one asteroid the entire time. He is claiming that the dust is not enough to come from this SINGLE asteroid. Nowhere did Selena actually assume 1 though. Selena says asteroid impact created the dust and as evidence for "some" asteroids, she points to Yucatan. Trent misinterprets and assumes Selena is speaking of one singular asteroid.
BaseerJoya1
Monday, Dec 15 2025
@Arthurxx usually is the indicator. It is not a complete statement about the consumer so it then breaks it up into subsets of consumers. What about consumers who think differently?
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 13 2025
@DominicCruse The reason it is B is fairly obvious when we think about it. The condition is if we have true meaning then we understand their social circumstances. So the author is stating that Smith does not understand their own true meaning. The condition was already laid out. Without social circumstances we can't have true meaning thus Smith does not have an understanding of her own social circumstances. I treated everything in between as fluff
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 13 2025
@JW991010 I drew a different conditional. It is simply without health we cannot have happiness. Therefore, the CP of it is that if we have happiness we have health. If we should not sacrifice our health to get money because it will make happiness unobtainable it makes the answer choice more easy to follow. We should only pursue money if it does not make happiness unobtainable. Remember, SA questions guarantee the conclusion - if we choose this answer it makes the conclusion guaranteed
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 13 2025
@VenessaO77 Take your time with untimed drills and really think it through. You won't figure it out under timed conditions if you don't train your brain naturally to quickly piece together the links
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 13 2025
This one was pretty easy for me. I kinda had it in my head but then diagrammed it just to be 100% sure.. One should never sacrifice there health for money because no health = no happiness. Therefore you can then say that sacrificing your health is sacrificing your happiness and from there you can piece it together that the only time we should pursue wealth is when it doesn't come at the cost of our happiness absolutely.
BaseerJoya1
Thursday, Dec 11 2025
I immediately eliminated B when I saw only if. I was between A and C and the reason I went A is for the reasons explained by the tutor. For C, I abandoned it because it is talking about Sandstrom knowing about the consequences which is different from the premise. The premise is simply stating that she could have reasonably expected, which is essentially implying that she didn't "know". Therefore, if we were to go with that answer and do a negation, the argument would still work. She "didn't know". Doesn't matter, the argument isn't relying on her knowing or not, it is expecting her to have the capacity to know.
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 06 2025
@LSATWarrior My take is that - being able to swap out the word proves it is unnecessary. Necessary means that without that rule, the argument breaks. So you can actually say that about the sufficient answer. You can essentially negate that argument and still get a logical argument. "The value of a jewel should NOT derive solely from the aesthetic pleasure it provides". The argument can still hold true in this case still.
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Dec 06 2025
@rjmjennings26 I actually did treat it like a part/whole relationship in a different way. Martha claims that since some daises are part of a class, and some species of that class are palatable, some daisies are for sure a class. Essentially Martha is crossing over characteristics of one class to another without sound reasoning.
BaseerJoya1
Thursday, Dec 04 2025
never using chatgpt to help me with writing out skeletons again.
BaseerJoya1
Tuesday, Nov 11 2025
@nathanbrowny2 random question i just drilled. No experience with this type but here's why i felt it was A and definitely not B (eliminated it quickly). B is evaluating any adverse effect on stomach function through acid production in the stomach. It has no mention of coffee or roasts that is in the stim. That would clearly take it out of consideration. If this question was the right one to ask, the argument would have to be more about how acid is produced and the effects it would have overall rather than have the focus be on coffee. The rest just didn't match at all and so A just seemed like the best fit
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Oct 11 2025
@shreyavpatel1@gmail.com My thoughts. A is wrong because you can simply make the argument that there are biological differences between men and women and since they drink the same amount of red wine that could account for the difference. Additionally, it doesn't say whether or not French men have a higher rate of heart problems than North Americans or even the same, it simply compares them to French women where you could make the claim that red win is still inhibiting the presence of heart disease. E is wrong for this reason. It does not give any info on the amount of fat those regions consume. It could be their diets are exclusively fat proof. The first sentence in the stim is very important. French Paradox clearly showing why the author is using France as an example as their diet is high in fat. The author is saying that if you're fat intake is high AND you don't want to reduce it, then drink red wine to be healthier. B in this case is correct as it attacks the "healthier" argument. If the author simply said "reduce the rate of heart disease", then none of these answers are correct. The author used the word healthier and so we can say that red wine causing liver issues does in fact not make them healthier. I got tripped up by much easier questions than this so don't get too worried about getting this wrong. I remind myself to really focus on the language the authors use.
BaseerJoya1
Saturday, Oct 11 2025
This question pmo. It said that scientists say that the petroleum came not from living material but from carbon deposits. My dumb self forgot to use common sense and simply said that the bacteria being a living organism actually supports the Geologist's argument that the scientists are wrong. I'm guessing using common sense would tell you that petroleum can't come from bacteria so therefor it explains why there are biomarkers on the petroleum
BaseerJoya1
Friday, Oct 10 2025
@Marsi Mangan Im about one month in at this point. I didn't do a Foundations section. Just been reading along my textbooks mainly focusing on LR over RC. Of course I feel that arguments are clicking for me, it's just I still get tricked by the most easy questions as soon as I do a blind review.
BaseerJoya1
Wednesday, Oct 01 2025
@Joel Keenan I believe you've misinterpreted the argument. There isn't an assumption that the wealthy will share the candidate's views but rather they will influence their views (compromise). The argument then states that because there is an even % of wealthy people dispersed among the parties, this belief is false since those candidates will probably be of the same belief as those who are wealthy, negating the influence factor. The argument is then flawed because it does not consider that the positions supported by the parties altogether will be of less variation than those taken by individual candidates, which can therefore lead to them being influenced.
BaseerJoya1
Thursday, Sep 25 2025
I was juggling between C and E when it clicked. If everyone gets an increase in income and people's satisfaction with their income depends on how well it does against their neighbours then there is no change in difference thus no change in satisfaction. If I make $20 more than my neighbour and my satisfaction depends on the fact I make $20 more then it would make no difference to me if we both had our income increased by $20 since the difference in income is the same
BaseerJoya1
Thursday, Sep 25 2025
@LayanHamarnah I had a similar experience with B and E. How I figured it out was simply placing the conclusion in the stimulus and seeing if it makes sense. When I placed B, there weren't flaws in the argument because consumers are trying to avoid interest charges entirely judging from the stim. E didn't fit because the stimulus didn't necessarily say that consumers want multiple options of places they want to use their credit card. That could be the case, but the author doesn't say it
BaseerJoya1
Thursday, Sep 25 2025
hmmm. I selected C even though I strongly considered D. The only reason I went against D was the phrase "mutually beneficial". The passage states that the relationship was not to the benefit of hollywood so I assumed there was no mutual benefits. Did I miss something here?
BaseerJoya1
Edited Wednesday, Sep 24 2025
@callofdutykaz Must be true questions can have answers that also could be true. The task with these is that the answer should be absolutely proven by the stimulus here. In E, that is proven. We simply put the first and last sentence together and prove E. D could be correct but the statement doesn't absolutely make it true that people who are sure of correctness should not undergo mediation. The statement doesn't necessarily say that people who believe they are correct are unwilling to compromise. They could be unwilling, but the stimulus does not say that.
BaseerJoya1
Wednesday, Sep 24 2025
One of my main issues I'm finding is that I trip myself up and move away from the correct answer often even when my gut is telling me that it was the correct answer. Something I am trying to do is trust my instincts more and remember that the LSAT isn't about trick questions. The answers are always obvious and so we should trust our process more.
@markymymarkymark768 Remember this is the student's POV. If the student is feeling that the paper will be better with a citation than without, then inevitably there paper will suffer. Think of it like this. An A with the Citation and a B without. Of course in this context the paper will suffer if the grade falls from A to B