- Joined
- Mar 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
I spent 8 minutes on this one and picked E, but thought it could be incorrect for a similar line of reasoning as all the other answer choices. Even if canned fruits and vegetables had the same amount of potassium as fresh fruit and vegetables, there could be other things that make them worse. Maybe canned vegetables use preservatives that make cardiac health worse. But I guess we have to assume it is the best option here
Maybe spain had hairless dogs, and transported them to both Peru and Mexico. In that world, it is not necessary that there was any exchange of hairless dogs between Peru and Mexico, which is an assumption that argument relies on.
I think this "level of difficulty can prove whether something happened or didn't happen" it a totally new LSAT concept to me.
It's just hard for me to grasp this new concept that the level of difficulty something is proves that either happened or didn't happen. Isn't that the same reasoning we are using to say A is wrong?
The conclusion is "the dogs must have been transported from one of THESE REGIONS to the other by boat." So if hairless dogs lived in other regions, that would introduce the possibility that the hairless dogs came from a different region. Maybe one that didn't need to transport the dogs by boat or through a huge jungle. That's why I chose A.
To argue against E, lets say it was actually more difficult to travel from one region to another by boat. They still may have done that because boats allow for easier storage of dogs.
Really one of those questions that makes me excited to one day study real laws and not hypothetical riddles.
my best guess: Sam’s point about Starlight cars not having defects is referring to all Starlight cars. Not just those made in the past year.
Really not sure where this assumption that Sam's argument is referring to everyone who ever purchased a Starlight automobile came from. The stimulus explicitely says that the people surveyed purchased the car over the last year. So I'm not sure why pointing out that the Starlight cars might show defects and decrease the percent of people who are satisfied with their purchase after a few years has anything to do with this argument about people who purchased Starlight cars over the last year.
I was inbetween answer choice E and C and chose C. I did not think the passage gave us reason to believe that restoring the archaeological site was going to risk destroying evidence. Especially since the stimulus said that it would make the site accessible. But I guess we need to assume that any construction work could destroy arch evidence.
I chose C because without all the evidence, the company restoring the site is forced to make a judgement: that the evidence that has not yet been found does not have a large impact on the current theories.
Sometimes it's hard to determine when we need to make an assumption not explicit in the stimululs. I feel like the explanation for answer choice C is lackluster.
It’s crazy we pay hundreds of dollars to answer questions like this. Chapgpt ah question.
Just noticed this, are the 8s upside down??
So crazy a test we pay $100s has so many glitches that we need to account for them in our practice
@kaylabjessup391 Or even 1-2 sentence definition boxes when you hover over the different question types
So it seems like most of who got this wrong were tripped up by the word "property." I don't love LSAT questions that simply use a word in an uncommon way and that's why I get it wrong. Feels like there's not a lot to learn from the mistake.
@BillyM_ The conclusion only applies in the hypothetical world where we have an interest in preserving populations. And we want to prove the conclusion to be correct. Proving the condition applies to a certain scenario is different from proving the conclusion to be true.
I'm just really confused by this concept that the sufficient condition "if we have an interest in preserving any (species)" is actually a hypothetical scenario we need to assume to be true.
I like that these video explanations are all using the same write down the premises and then the conclusion strategy. Feel like I'm getting faster with this question type
I haven't tracked any applications yet because I plan to apply to law school in October. I added a profile picture though. Am I eligible for the $50? Is tracking applications a sufficient or necessary condition of being eligible for $50?
2:54 JY says ineffect-ual instead of ineffective which should be a word I love it lol
Surprised this one was only a 2/5 difficulty, took me longer than the last few 3/5 questions. I feel like I've watched so many videos that when I work through a question I hear JY's voice in my head lol.
Shoutout to everyone else studying for the LSAT while working or going to school full time. It’s not easy, but we can all do hard things!
After reading the stimulus I thought of an alternative hypothesis that the surgeries were causing the throat abnormalities. My takeaway is that the best possible answer choice for a strengthen question is taking the x->y relationship and rejecting that y->x. Even though there could be unlimited alternative hypothesis you could think of that make equal or more sense logically, you need to favor the rejection of the conclusion causing the premise. I'm not sure why, but that's the lesson I learned from this riddle I mean question.
@BillyM_ I'm going to chalk B being incorrect to the fact that we aren't talking about people's views on new challenges. Instead, we are talking about tech innovation.
@BillyM_ After hearing the explanation for answer choice B I'm even more confused. So it's wrong because some people are reluctant to take on new challenges because of social inertia, and therefore this answer supports the conclusion in the stimulus. Can't I apply the same reasoning to answer choice A? People are afraid technology will take their jobs and oppose tech innovations. Why? Can't we again blame social inertia?
I ruled out A because I assumed a large group of people holding the same belief that influences them to resist social change would fall into the "social inertia" bucket. But I guess social inertia is just referring to the result of populations resisting change. A is saying a large population is resistant to change because they hold this belief about job loss. To me, this just seems like social inertia with an extra step, and therefore A would be supporting and not weaking the stimulus. But this isn't correct. I think my problem was I made too big of an assumption about the term social inertia.
Huh, I don't remember the stimulus talking about children's willful disobediance. I remember it talking about how the pre frontal cortex helps us adapt to new rules, and that this develops as we're older. I guess it's ok to make inferences off the stimulus sometimes, even though for this question type I thought we weren't supposed to.