Bobby68

Joined: Mar 2025
Subscription: Live

Join the California LSAT Study Group!🌻

(All LSAT learners are welcomed!) 👇

https://discord.gg/sY5St5DGdN

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided Goal score: 180

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

Feature Request · Feature Request: Custom Timer Settings Beyond 200%

Bobby68

3 days ago

Hi!

If you click on the timing settings for drills, sections, PTs, you scroll down all the way down and you can see custom timing settings.

I'm not sure what 225%+ looks like for the average time per question, but it calculates it for you as you increase the time. 😊

PrepTests ·

PT105.S2.Q15

Bobby68

Friday, Apr 10

@WilRothman I agree with this assumption! I thought the same thing with how the survey could be better with middle and elementary schools included...☺️

But I also just wanted to add that I went back to the stimulus to double check what it said...and even if we hold a survey with elementary and middle school data included, the survey would still be flawed because the first sentence mentioned "schools" in general. So it's ok if we included any schools in the survey, the issue was if the people in the survey attended these schools in the city (no matter what level of school it was).

PrepTests ·

PT11.S2.Q17

Bobby68

Thursday, Apr 9

chat...I got robbed on this one 😿

C and D were close but I'll show what was the difference...

Ok so 7Sage's classes tutors come clutch when teaching parallel questions. They made it less scary, and they say to look at the broader picture. Narrowing yourself would corner you to try to match the exact words when its really the type of reasoning or argument...

Stuff I kept in mind when doing this, but I have to remember it won't look exactly like this...

✅ we got 2 things/proposals
✅ one is better/more good
✅ why? the other one supports interests of a group AND supported bad interests in the past!

A) Surely Centreville should oppose adoption of the regional planning commission’s new plan since it is not in Centreville’s interest, even though it might be in the interest of some towns in the region.

Town should oppose a proposition because it's not in the interest of one party, but might have been good!

🚫 We only got a mentioned proposal we should oppose/not support...
🚫 We are missing a party who supports a bad interest...we just simply state it's not in the interest of the town.
🚫 We are not supporting it, even though it might have been a good thing?

B) The school board should support the plan for the new high school since this plan was recommended by the well-qualified consultants whom the school board hired at great expense.

School should support proposition because experts says so.

✅ a good proposal is mentioned
🚫 The argument doesn't say we "should" support this plan, but just saying that its better/more good...
- "should" is like making us do an action....
  - "We should go to the store" vs "this store is better/more good than this other store"
🚫 Doesn't mention if the consultant's interests are bad...they seem to be leaning on supporting a claim because they are experts...
🚫 Also The stimulus never argued based on an authoritative/expert claim. It's more of someone's interests than one's expertise. The consultants in the argument could have also been skilled on what they know. But the argument is using their "interests" that are not the people's interests as the excuse that this proposal is bad.
- interests: I like/don't like this law because the people are interested in money, not the people.
- expertise/authority: I like/don't like this law because the people are knowledgable in what they do, and we should/shouldn't listen to them.

C) Of the two budget proposals, the mayor’s is clearly preferable to the city council’s, since the mayor’s budget addresses the needs of the city as a whole, whereas the city council is protecting special interests.

Two proposals, one is preferable, because one addresses the needs of city, the other only protects "special interests"

🚫 Preferable is different than having something be better at doing the job.
- "People would like that thing more" vs " "That thing is more good/better"
🚫Even if we accept the "preferable" part, it starts off by comparing the interests of the two sides instead of just focusing on city council's side.
- "this thing is better because this side has a good interest, the other side got this other "special interests" (maybe bad, maybe not).
🚫I also got no indication or hint that these special interests were bad...which is kinda important to let me know that the better proposal is good.
- in the stimulus it mentioned "detrimental" (bad/harmful) which gave me the hint that...yeah we shouldn't think this side is the better one.

D) Nomura is clearly a better candidate for college president than Miller, since Nomura has the support of the three deans who best understand the president’s job and with whom the president will have to work most closely.

One person is better than another because the better person is the best at doing that job AND the president will have to work closely?

✅ One thing better than another
🚫 Similar to B, we aren't trying to say something is better because it's got better qualities or something good. We are reasoning by saying that something is better because the other side got something bad...bad interests.

E) The planned light-rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well, since its main opponent is the city government, which has always ignored the needs of the suburbs and sought only to protect the interests of the city.

A proposal is good because the other side interests are bad, and always have been.

✅ We got a good proposal that will do a thing (maybe better).
✅ Goes straight to attacking the opponents for protecting the interest they want AND supported bad interests in the past (always ignored the needs/interests of the suburbs).
this one just kinda merged the interests of the past to present by saying its always been bad...
If you want to go even further to apply Reading Comprehension skills on this question, you can also argue that "ignore" is a negative word that attempts to indicate the interests the city government is representing are bad for the suburbs.
- similar to "detriment of the city as a whole"

General · New feature: streaks

Bobby68

Monday, Apr 6

@Aditya I agree, new flame colors would be cool 🔥🧡💜💙

PrepTests ·

PT17.S3.Q2

Bobby68

Saturday, Apr 4

I am surprised this was level 3, I found it tricky! 😳 Especially when the answer did not really give a direct mechanism of how it worked...but it was the only one that really addressed the paradox.

I wanted to give my thoughts on this one since it was not easy getting to the right answer in my opinion.

I'm trying something new in that I write or keep in my head what we are comparing (as 7Sage tutors guide learners in this way).

What are we comparing/what's the paradox:

Several traps = number of beetles greatly reduced

One trap = numbers increased

Things to keep in mind for RRE:

make the least amount of assumptions in picking an answer choice.
made sure it addresses the paradox (some answers sound nice and relevant but didn't relate to the number of beetles by using one vs many traps)

A) The scent of a single trap’s lure usually cannot be detected throughout a backyard garden by rose beetles.

I need to make an assumption here about how this increased the number of beetles.
We know a single trap actually leads to more beetles coming in the garden, but if the scent isn't powerful to lure the beetles, how does the numbers increase?
- I would have to make up a story on how this works, like because the scent is not detected, the beetles actually notice this and call their buddies to come in the garden. Or maybe the color of the bag attracts the beetles but not the scent to kill them. When you start to use your imagination too much, it's a red flag for RRE questions. 🥲

B) Several traps are better able to catch a large number of rose beetles than is one trap alone, since any rose beetles that evade one trap are likely to encounter another trap if there are several traps in the garden.

I liked B but it made me uneasy how it only resolved half of the paradox.
We need an answer that accounts for one group causing something to decrease, while the other thing causing the numbers to increase.
- In other words, the paradox is several traps= decrease, and one trap = increase
  - B is more like, one trap = decrease, several traps = decreases more.

C) When there are several traps in a garden, they each capture fewer rose beetles than any single trap would if it were the only trap in the garden.

This almost felt like it contradicts what I just read. I want several traps to decrease the population. And giving me a scenario where several traps don't do this nor explains how the only trap causes an increase in beetles doesn't help.
Maybe this one was attractive for trying to highlight a situation that is out of the normal and explains for a difference...but there had to be many assumptions to try to make this work directly with the stimulus.

D) The presence of any traps in a backyard garden will attract more rose beetles than one trap can catch, but several traps will not attract significantly more rose beetles to a garden than one trap will.

So any trap, no matter the kind, will always cause to attract more beetles (maybe because of their scent or whatever special trick these traps use), but having several traps will not attract so many beetles.
- So if each bag catches 50 beetles...
- one bag attracts 60 beetles, and catches 50, 10 are let go. Meaning an increase in beetles. 📈✅
- several bags (at least 2) attracts 60 beetles (no more than the one trap), and catches all 60 (since 2 bags, has a capacity of 100 beetles). Because there's a lot of the bags, there could potentially be still room to catch even more beetles if it could. Either way, the number of beetles decreased. 📉✅
It was not obvious for me, as I felt that this answer did address both sides of the paradox, yet I was hesitant to pick it because I was still left asking myself why does it do this?
I think it's the very "presence" of traps impacts the number of beetles that come. If it's a normal causal behavior that occurs in all traps, then I'm guessing this is what kept this answer to still be right.
- Similar to the frequency/number of bags (like answer choice B) and the bag capacity (answer choice E), the presence of the bags impacts the beetle behavior.

E) When there is only one trap in the garden, the plastic bag quickly becomes filled to capacity, allowing some rose beetles to escape.

I'm not so sure about the explanation for E actually, but I know I have to add more assumptions for this one to work.
When the one bag fills to capacity, it's indicated that it would become so inefficient that more beetles (like the ones escaping) add to the increase of number of beetles...
- I'm kinda left wondering if this behavior also happens with several bags too?
A little thing I also thought of, is that the bugs escaped when the bag reached full capacity. I feel I can argue that when it wasn't at capacity, the one bag could have helped decrease the number of beetles at the time it still was able to take in some. I would also want to assume that if the several bags also became at full capacity, some would also escape, no longer causing a decrease, and also cause an increase in population (if that's what the escaped beetles meant)...

PrepTests ·

PT10.S4.Q23

Bobby68

Edited Saturday, Apr 4

ngl chat...this question had me cooked...I was just thinking about it for a long time...but here is a breakdown in case anyone needs some help. 💙

The two things we are comparing:

Other famines = small labor force/higher demand of workers --> higher wages

Potato Famine = small labor force --> no significant raise in wages

Some things to think about for RRE:

what makes the Potato Famine special in regards to breaking the law of supply and demand?
- maybe this famine didn't follow the conditions that triggered the law of supply and demand.
maybe the other famines got something special...
Keep note: the more assumptions you try to make for an answer choice, the more suspicious you should be on how it explains anything...(refer to answer D).

A) Improved medical care reduced the mortality rate among able-bodied adults in the decade following the famine to below prefamine levels.

I was so attracted to this one! 😭
But here is how I ruled it out...eventually 🥲
I literally realized I glazed over the last words "following decade", where we can talk about things happening in the 1850s, "in the decade following" (just like D)
So if the number of people dying is back to the regular rate before the famine, it impacts the number of people living, meaning that there's more people competing for jobs...that its almost as if nothing really changed to impact the workers.
- no reduction in workers and therefore not making the workers more valuable for wages to go up.

B) Eviction policies of the landowners in Ireland were designed to force emigration of the elderly and infirm, who could not work, and to retain a high percentage of able-bodied workers.

This answer is tricky in that it seems to try and distract by using the "elderly and inform, who cannot work", where it doesn't seem relevant to how it relates to the working population and keeping wages high

So this answer is similar to A in the reason that keeping a high percentage of able-bodied workers.
- In the LSAT, we can't know an absolute number (like 10, 25.5, 37, etc.) from a percentage without knowing what 100% looks like (is it 100,000 people?), but because we are looking for something that LEAST or doesn't contribute to the explanation, so its ok to take advantage of vague language that high percentage of workers, is a high enough number that could impact the value of workers and their wages.
The more workers or what employers perceive to be a lot of workers, the less likely they will be seen as a few, and therefore, the workers aren't valuable to have their wages raised.

C) Advances in technology increased the efficiency of industry and agriculture, and so allowed maintenance of economic output with less demand for labor.

"Low wages" (as seen in answer choice E) and "less demand for labor" are two things that go against what we typically see in other famines (riding wages and high demand for workers).
Like answer choice E, an outside factor that disrupts the causal mechanism for the law of supply and demand that forces the country to have a low demand for labor
- we need a high demand, or see workers are more valuable to have their wages rise.
- In real life, robotics and mechanisms actually take away jobs from people because the mechanisms can do the jobs for efficiently and faster without worrying about the problems that come with having workers do the job. Workers are seen as less valuable since employers can just say that a robot/mechanism can do the job.

D) The birth rate increased during the decade following the famine, and this compensated for much of the loss of population that was due to the famine.

It was so hard to see D at first but it simply does the LEAST to impact the causal reasoning that for the law of supply and demand.
The things that can impact the supply and demand and the wages are the number of workers, not the number of children.
- So even if the children made up for the loss of the population, its really workers with other workers that we needed care about
having more children means, they are not of age to work yet, so this doesn't impact...as of yet...how many workers Ireland has.
The more assumptions we have to make on how something directly impacts something else, the less power it has on explaining.
- But what if 8-10 year olds were considered old enough to work at this time? (Unfortunately, child labor was normal at certain points of history in Europe 😕🥀). It's true that the maximum age a person would be is maybe 10 years old within a decade that one is born in (if someone was born in the year 2000, they would be 10 years old in 2010). I'm not sure what the child labor laws were like at this time, but we would have to make this assumption that children were also considered part of the labor force/workers.
- By how much did the rate increase? We also don't know by how much the birth rate increased or when the people had children. Unlike answer choice B that included "high percentage", the rate could increase just by a tiny bit and that's still considered an increase. Even if 8-10 year olds were considered old enough to work...it might not be really enough to impact the demand of workers and wages. We have to assume the rate increased a substantial amount plus the assumption mentioned previously about child workers.
- What if there were a lot of children that were working age that could actually impact the demand and wages? We actually don't know when the rate increased within the following decade. It could be a possibility that the rate increase happened in the last 3 years of the decade (1857, which is still technically within the "following decade") in which case the children would be 3 years old, definitely not working age. So if we assumed that 8 years old was the minimum age a child was able to work at this time and the birth rate was really high, having a lot of 3 year old children still wouldn't contribute to the number of working individuals.

E) England, which had political control of Ireland, legislated artificially low wages to provide English-owned industry and agriculture in Ireland with cheap labor.

So if an outside factor like, English colonizers, intervened/forcefully impacted the casual relationship in the nature of the law of supply and demand, and keep wages low, then this explains why the Potato Famine was different than other famines (which other famines have high wages).

PrepTests ·

PT122.S1.Q8

Bobby68

Edited Thursday, Apr 2

Hopefully this helps someone...I'm not sure, I see there is an explanation for it and also tutors breaking it down...but wanted to add my quick insight here...😊🌻

Before we look at the answers, let's see what we are comparing: 💙

Call #1 for the land animals

Call #2 for the air animals

Somethings to maybe think about when looking at these two groups:

Maybe there's something special about the land or air animals that we need two different calls for? Like the behaviors of attack are different...This was my prephrase...
I wasn't able to prephrase this answer but another thought someone can have is that these calls are necessary for something relating to the monkey's behavior...

------------

A) By varying the pitch of its alarm call, a vervet monkey can indicate the number of predators approaching.

We would have to assume that the land vs air predators vary in numbers...but for some reason I don't know that.
- I actually assumed/imagined it was just one predator for land vs air when they were attacking...
But also it adds more information about the types of pitches, so not only does it indicate the type of predator, but also the number...but I'm still left wondering about why the pitch is different for the type of predator.

B) Different land-based predators are responsible for different numbers of vervet monkey deaths.

We only talk about land predators here but I'm not sure how drastically different these numbers are...
If I picked this answer, I probably was assuming the land predators are more dangerous, so maybe the monkeys want to prioritize these predators with a special call...but I would think its best to try to not die from anyone.

C) No predators that pose a danger to vervet monkeys can attack both from land and from the air.

for some reason I also assumed the predators were only doing one of these tactics, but also the stimulus were calling for what happens when a predator does come from the air or the land.

This answer means that there isn't a predator that at one day flies down to attack, then another day they chose to run up to you from the ground...

So this one was interesting! but let's just say that there are no animals that does both...I'm still left with the animals that only does one of these things, and am still trying to answer for when an animal does attack from the air or from the ground...why are the calls different.
Like I need a trigger for some special characteristic about the predators or the monkeys when they do encounter each other.

D) Vervet monkeys avoid land-based predators by climbing trees but avoid predation from the air by diving into foliage.

So this answer kinda spoke to the prephrase above, that there's something special going on between the two types of predators, but in a more indirect way...
Basically the because the calls are different, it allows for the monkeys to know what type of strategy to use to avoid these predators.
If there was only one type of call, the monkeys would just do whatever they think is best without knowing what's coming...If they accidentally hid in the bushes instead of a tree when a land animal was coming to attack, that would put the monkey in danger!
foliage = plant leaves. I think of a bush.
- But don't trees have foliage too? Trees also have foliage but treat the two different acts in combination with the subject as being special, that there's something special about doing these two different things (climbing trees vs diving into foliage). Maybe the acts (climbing vs diving) are really the special tactic in avoiding these predators.

E) Certain land-based predators feed only on vervet monkeys, whereas every predator that attacks vervet monkeys from the air feeds on many different animals.

so basically this is saying that "some" land-based predators
- certain land predators = monkeys
- every air predator = monkeys + other animals
But both types of predators still hunt the monkeys, which basically still keeps me at the beginning in asking why these two types of predators are special when attacking the monkeys.
- I need something special about these two types of predators when they do attack the monkeys.
"Certain" or "some" are weak in that it only applies to some, but we don't know it its the same predators that attack these monkeys.

PrepTests ·

PT9.S3.Q16

Bobby68

Edited Thursday, Apr 2

Hopefully this helps someone since there's no explanation 😭💫

Using the 7Sage tactic where we grab the two things we want to compare:

Romans have ability to use water power energy.

regions dominated by large cities didn't use this water power.

Its hard to prephrase a specific reason but we can be broad:

I was thinking there must be something special about cities that prevent Romans from wanting to use power...maybe there was another energy source that was better for cities?
Maybe it was actually a disadvantage for cities to use water power...

A) The ancient Romans were adept at constructing and maintaining aqueducts that could carry quantities of water sufficient to supply large cities over considerable distances.

This gives me extra information as to the skills Romans have and the ability to carry the water to cities, yet it is still true that cities didn't use water power.
So basically if they had the ability to build aqueducts, why didn't they want water power as the stimulus stated?
- Similar to real life where we have the ability to build lots of green energy devices, yet why don't we see them everywhere?
Also we are talking about water power, I'm a bit unsure if this water from the aqueducts will be used for sewage, bath, drinking water, agriculture...

B) In the areas in which water power was not used, water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.

So in areas where water was used, there was lots of water available, but I'm wondering how is this a bad thing? Maybe if they mentioned that it floods cities...but it seems if there is plenty of water, why don't they use it?
I feel that B needs a lot of assumptions about how this information leads to water being bad for cities.
I would also pay attention to how the LSAT uses the word "variation", as it is a word seen in strengthen, weaken, paradox. We don't know how much it varies nor how it varies. When something varies, does it go up, or down? does it vary by a little or a lot?

C) Water power was relatively vulnerable to sabotage, but any damage could be quickly and inexpensively repaired.

So it gave me a problem in the first half which is great! But then it resolved itself...
I wanted the problem to stay a problem to guarantee that cities used that excuse to not use water power, but having something quickly fixed and with little money wasted to do so made it actually seem like its was a good thing. That worrying about sabotage was not that bad...but I need something strong to say it was why cities didn't want it...
Second of all, it would have been nice to have the problem apply to cities...since I was looking for something special about cities that made it different than other areas that did use the water power...

D) In the areas in which water power was not used, water flow in rivers and streams was substantial throughout the year but nevertheless exhibited some seasonal variation.

I was attracted to this one, and selected it until I read E. But this one I said, ok so places that don't use water power, like the cities, just relied on traditional sources, so there's no point of using water power...
- But I was still wondering why water power was bad thing.
  - I wasn't sure if these "traditional sources" were better than water (they could be worse and maybe dangerous like coal), but also, wouldn't it be cool to use any source of energy available? why can't we use both water and the traditional?
  - Why does using traditional sources make water power bad for cities?
I felt this answer was a bit weaker, as it still left gaps of how traditional sources were good/better, and water power was bad for cities.

E) In heavily populated areas the introduction of water power would have been certain to cause social unrest by depriving large numbers of people of their livelihood.

This answer highlights something special about cities and why water power was not used when it's a good thing. In this case, for cities, it would cause people to be angry (bad thing) that the water power is negatively impacting their lives.
Unlike answer choice D, E straight up mentions that water power would cause a bad thing to happen...I didn't have to guess and fill in the gaps like D to say water power was bad for cities...
- I imagined it might remove people from where they live to build the water power structures. Similar to how cities like Los Angeles experienced gentrification from highways/freeways being built through places that used to be neighborhoods. It caused a lot of people to leave their homes.
I feel this one is tricky because it did not mention cities, but we had to infer that for cities, there are large number of people living in it (not commuting/traveling to the city...which was hard for a time where no cars are available). So the "heavily populated areas" are referring to cities.

PrepTests ·

PTA.S4.Q12

Bobby68

Edited Friday, Apr 3

Breakdown for this question in case anyone needs some help! 🌻💙

40% increase in Box office receipts (I don't know what this is...but I assumed like movie tickets? or receipts you get when a ticket is sold?)

2x movie theaters going bankrupt

Why is this?

I want to look for something that explained how receipts don't correlate with keeping a movie theater open.
maybe there's something we don't know based on the information given that I need so I can say, ah yeah, this makes sense...

A) Films cost, on average, twice as much to produce today as they did ten years ago.

Too many assumptions needed to see how movie theaters are affected.
so does the cost of making a movie fall on to the theater or the people making the movie?
Ok, even if it costed more, is that good or bad? Food also costs more, but we unfortunately still have to buy it in order to live.
If anything, in real life, the movie theaters are separate from the people making the movies like Warner's Brothers or Paramount, and I would think that maybe the one's creating the movies would go bankrupt...

B) Ticket prices at some theaters fell last year.

This only happened at "some" theaters, which is weak language and I don't know if these were the ones that went out of business or the ones that stayed...
Even if ticket prices fell, this is a good thing for business and would actually deepen the mystery as to why twice as many theaters went out of business...

C) Those of last year’s films that were successful were very profitable films that were shown by exclusive engagement at only a selection of the largest theaters.

What determines a successful movie? Usually those that do super great at the box office, sells lots of tickets, which maybe causes them to print out those receipts.
And so if these movies that did great but also had 40% more receipts were only shown at a few select theaters...the theaters that do not show these films are left out and people don't go to them because they didn't show the top trending movies of the year.
- less customers you attract --> more likely to become bankrupt.
In real life its expensive to pay for the right to show a famous movie, so theaters are taking risks on picking and choosing out of the many movies, which ones they can pay for and want to show.

D) The amount of money spent on film advertising increased greatly last year over the year before, and the majority of this expense was absorbed by the producers and the distributors of films, not by the theater owners.

I was ok with the first part, and was wanting to hear something that maybe it costs a lot of money for theaters to show these advertisements or something, but instead it says the producers/distributers "absorbed the expense", so not a problem for theaters but for producers/distributers.

E) In general, an increase in a theater’s box office receipts for any year is accompanied by an increase in that theater’s profits from snack-food and soft-drink sales for that year.

This is one of the answer choices I felt deepened the mystery the most because if you make money from the receipts AND the snacks and drinks, then how did half of the theaters went out of business?
this is a good thing instead of a bad thing for theaters to cause another bad thing (lots of theaters going bankrupt).

PrepTests ·

PT135.S4.Q10

Bobby68

Edited Wednesday, Apr 1

Seeing in the comments how C is a bit confusing, I hope this helps... 😊💙

The two groups we are seeing are basically eating as much of other foods that are high in fat...but I want to see the group that reduced their meat to be the one higher! Im trying to solve for why they are the higher group.

"People who reduce their consumption of red meat tend to consume as much of other foods that are high in fat as do those who have not reduced their consumption of red meat."

Basically...💫

Group that reduced meat: other fatty foods (example: 50 grams)

Group that did not reduce their red meat: other fatty foods (50 grams) + meat (1/2 pound of meat)

I want to assume the group that did not reduce the meat still eating more fat 🍖🥲...doesn't help me as much as D.

PrepTests ·

PT135.S4.Q10

Bobby68

Wednesday, Apr 1

@Max You brought up a good point! ☺️ I feel that the other answer choices are just much worse or doesn't really explain that it allowed answer D to have this assumption about consuming the same amount of food.

I thought of "replacing" being similar with the word "substituting", where like if I stopped eating red meat, I'm going to replace that amount I used to eat of red meat, with cheese or baked goods...so say I ate a half a pound of steak, I replace it with a half of pound of cheese! I still did assume I'm replacing the same amount of food to make sure the fat intake was actually higher, but I feel this is the only reasonable explanation out of the answer choices as to how cheese and baked goods resulted in a higher fat intake with the action of the people eating...

PrepTests ·

PT129.S1.Q8

Bobby68

Edited Wednesday, Apr 1

Hopefully this helps someone! ☺️✨

Discrepancy:

minimum wage causes...

companies typically cut/reduce number of workers/jobs

fast food industry did not cut/reduce number of workers/jobs

Why is that?

look for an answer that talks about why fast food is so special.
or maybe why the other companies that are not fast food cut their jobs.
keep the topic about the minimum wage, and how the effect is different for fast food and other companies...

---------------------

A) After the recent increase in the minimum wage, decreased job turnover in the fast-food industry allowed employers of fast-food workers to save enough on recruiting costs to cover the cost of the wage increase.

highlights a special thing about fast food companies (compared to other companies) and how the minimum wage didn't result in cutting jobs.
the minimum wage change actually did a good thing for the companies that made them save money. Every time an employee leaves, the company has to pay someone to hire new applicants, go through training (which costs money), and such...but if you raise their wages, the workers will be happy and stay! Which makes the fast-food industry not have to worry about extra problems when having to fire and/or hire new people.
Even if you don't know what "job turnover" (workers themselves wanting to leave the company) means, focus on the positive words like "save enough" or "cover the cost", as those are things that sound good for companies...and I would actually want to keep my workers if it causes a good thing!

B) If, in any industry, an increase in the minimum wage leads to the elimination of many jobs that pay the minimum wage, then higher-paying supervisory positions will also be eliminated in that industry.

I feel like B is adding extra information that explains what happens when you minimum wage cuts jobs...that the higher position jobs will also be gone. But I want to look for why fast food didn't cut back jobs, not when (if applicable) they did cut jobs.
This also applies to any industry...I want to find something special about fast-food or non-fast food industries.

C) With respect to its response to increases in the minimum wage, the fast-food industry does not differ significantly from other industries that employ many workers at the minimum wage.

I want to find something special about fast-food. This was actually my rephrase: "I need something special about fast-food!" something I can say makes them unique, special, and stand out that that's why they didn't cut jobs.
C does the opposite and is actually making them less special, which deepens the mystery as to why they didn't cut jobs.
If they are doing the similar/same thing as other industries...then why are they different? We already are treating them the same and want to know about something special but if I am being given more information about them being similar to others, then that doesn't help me. 😕

D) A few employees in the fast-food industry were already earning more than the new, higher minimum wage before the new minimum wage was established.

I was attracted to this answer! But unfortunately it said "a few", so a very small group out of all the fast-food workers. I want to look for something more powerful that affects most, if not, all of the fast-food industry.
I thought because they already have something higher than the minimum-wage, it won't lead to the company wanting to fire their workers. But because its only a few out of the workforce, I'm left wondering about the other workers who are paid less and then the minimum wage causes their wages to increase...will the company decide to cut their jobs like the other industries?

E) Sales of fast food to workers who are paid the minimum wage did not increase following the recent change in the minimum wage.

We are talking about the impact of sales before and after the change: did not increase...
But how would this cause companies to keep all their workers?
I feel that worse sales would actually be bad for the company...which is the opposite of what answer choice A is like, where A is a good thing that would cause the companies to not want to cut jobs, while answer choice E makes companies more likely to want to fire people if their sales are not increasing...
So I feel E is wrong because it does highlight something going on with the fast-food industry, but because its a cause that most reasonably can be considered bad, it would actually would more likely support a reason why the fast-food industry did/would cut jobs.

General · New "Adaptive Mode" for drilling...Help! 😭📚

Bobby68

Wednesday, Apr 1

Oh ok, thank you so much 😊 @Kevin_Lin

PrepTests ·

PT134.S2.Q11

Bobby68

Edited Wednesday, Apr 1

Doing the method they showed me in class for seeing what we are supposed to resolve: ✨🤙

Large, urban hospitals = lower recovery rate

Smaller, rural hospitals = higher recovery rate

---------

A) Because there are fewer patients to feed, nutritionists at small hospitals are better able to tailor meals to the dietary needs of each patient.

This does something, there's a difference stated that can explain the differences. Even if I don't know how...
People have food allergies, or have food restrictions (many people in real life cannot eat meats or vegetables because of chronic illnesses that impact the digestive system).
- If you give someone who's allergic to peanuts a peanut butter sandwich...they will get worse! or won't eat it and get weaker...
- There are some illnesses in real life where eating heavy fiber or red meats can actually be dangerous or fatal.

B) The less friendly, more impersonal atmosphere of large hospitals can be a source of stress for patients at those hospitals.

This does something, there's a difference stated that can explain the differences. Even if I don't know how...
Stress causes sickness and triggers a lot of mental and physical problems...if people are being less friendly, it could actually be bad for the patients trying their best to get well soon...
Reminds me how some people say living in a friendly, quiet rural town is more relaxing than being in a city where people are stressed about the pressure and the problems that comes with living in cities...but just imagine this being with hospitals.

C) Although large hospitals tend to draw doctors trained at the more prestigious schools, no correlation has been found between the prestige of a doctor's school and patients' recovery rate.

Doesn't do anything...even if I don't understand...
I was actually ok with the first part, thinking maybe doctors from prestigious hospitals actually are mean, where it causes problems for patients like in answer choice B or maybe these doctors are the best, they are put more pressure, make more mistakes, or have less time to actually give quality care to the patients...
The problem with C was that it actually didn't say something like I mentioned above...it instead introduced a subject for a cause, but there's no correlation/effect...and we can't really conclude anything a difference from something that does nothing (has no correlation/effect).
- it felt like I was introduced a phenomenon, but then said, the reason actually doesn't matter because it doesn't impact the thing you are trying to solve...
- I need a reason for the difference in patient recovery rates, but this one doesn't give me one...
I would be careful with ruling out an answer just because it didn't mention the smaller hospitals...

D) Because space is relatively scarce in large hospitals, doctors are encouraged to minimize the length of time that patients are held for observation following a medical procedure.

This does something, there's a difference stated that can explain the differences. Even if I don't know how...
People who gone through a medical procedures need a lot of attention after. Lots of rest, careful attention, maybe there are certain things that they cannot do afterwards.
If doctors don't have the time to check on the patient afterwards, there is a greater chance that something can go wrong and put the patient under longer care.
If doctors don't give patients a lot of time, patients maybe have to schedule another appointment to go over their problems and such, but that's more time they have to wait and they are still sick!

E) Doctors at large hospitals tend to have a greater number of patients and consequently less time to explain to staff and to patients how medications are to be administered

This does something, there's a difference stated that can explain the differences. Even if I don't know how...
similar to D...
If a patient doesn't get all the attention they need to maybe ask all the questions or be able to properly take their medicine, they will be taking longer to figure out how to get well...
- and the staff helping them would also be less of help.
If the patient accidentally takes their medicine in the wrong way, it could also prolong their illness...

PrepTests ·

PT9.S3.Q12

Bobby68

Edited Sunday, Apr 5

I was a bit lost as to the discrepancy that we are trying to explain...but then after a bit I remembered from some 7Sage classes that we grab the two things and kinda just put them against each other to see it more visually: ☺️💙

Insect record: warm climate immediately

insect data we found first...

Pollen Record: warm climate long after

pollen data we found second...

<-Glacier melted----|--------------------|----->

______________^insect_______^pollen____

Discrepancy: why was there a gap between the time these two pieces of evidence were found?

Note: keep in mind when we say "beetles" or "warm-weather plants", we are assuming we are talking about all of them...if you see quantifiers like "some beetles", "many plants", "few beetles", these are a pretty weak...

A) Cold-weather beetle fossils can be mistaken for those of beetles that live in warm climates.

If you mistaken cold-climate beetles with warm-climate beetles, and the cold beetles love the cold, they could have lived during the time when the glacier existed! And when they died, is actually when it started to become warmer, leaving a huge time gap before the plants that created the pollen data lived.
takeaways: mistakes in data can explain inconsistencies.

B) Warm-weather plants cannot establish themselves as quickly as can beetles in a new environment.

This explains the time gap. If (all) warm weather plants took longer than beetles to exist in an area, then it explains the time between finding the beetles and the pollen that we later found.

C) Beetles can survive in a relatively barren postglacial area by scavenging.

This one is a bit wordy and it helps to imagine in your head what this means.
This means beetles can exist in an area after the glacier melted where there is nothing to really eat...they scavenge for food (or eat the leftovers).
Barren = poor vegetation/not a lot, if any plants...
- so having little/no plants explains why the beetles were there first, and the plants were there a long time after the beetles.

D) Since plants spread unevenly in a new climate, researchers can mistake gaps in the pollen record as evidence of no new overall growth.

The key to this one is the second part of the sentence...that it can be recorded as evidence of no new overall growth.
- basically the researchers just made a mistake and wrote down that plants didn't really live right after the glacier melted...
- the mistake wasn't done for the beetles though, so they were shown to live first.
explains why there was a big gap between the beetles living after the glacier melted and when the researchers thought the plants lived...

E) Beetles are among the oldest insect species and are much older than many warm-weather plants.

This one is tricky because E does talk about time in a way using words like "oldest" and we think maybe its because the beetles came first, that's why there was a gap between the beetles and the plants.
Why does E not explain the discrepancy? I think it's because it requires too many assumptions for it to explain anything.
- Are the "many" (at least 2) warm-weather plants the same ones we are taking about here?
- Do these "many" plants the same ones that create pollen that we found?
- Let's say if this statement is true and we accept that the plants are the same ones we are referring to in the stimulus...what if we are past this time of development/evolution and these plants and beetles both already exist? Then saying how one is older doesn't really do anything anymore 😕...

General

•

Edited Wednesday, Apr 1

Bobby68

😖 Frustrated

New "Adaptive Mode" for drilling...Help! 😭📚

I wanted to ask the community and also maybe have 7Sage team chime in as I have been drilling with folks using the new "adaptive" feature that replaced the random question type setting. How has it been working for y'all? 🥹

I've been drilling in a group setting but for this past whole week I've been getting only conditional reasoning tag! I thought it was maybe just coincidence, but when others in my group streamed their drills, they got say, only flaws or evaluate. I'm guessing its based off our weaknesses but conditionals have actually been my strongest for the past few months...so even if I wanted to go with adaptive mode, I'm not sure how to impact the questions they throw at me...

Is there a way to change this to be truly random like it originally was?

Maybe I'm missing something... 🥲

Any help is appreciated! Thank you!

PrepTests ·

PT15.S3.Q8

Bobby68

Edited Thursday, Mar 26

Chat...I got cooked.

Literally did not pay attention to the dates really...for some reason my brain just thought the author would list the year in order... 💀🙃

Just saying, we all got our off days...😅

PrepTests ·

PT9.S4.Q19

Bobby68

Saturday, Mar 21

I did not understand this one at all since I thought the necessary assumption only was supposed to apply to Anita's argument.

Since I am still learning, anyone is able to add/correct my explanations. 💙🥲🤙

I saw A and thought, huh, wouldn't this strengthen Marcus's Argument though? nah we don't need this one...but then we did need it or else Anita's argument would be some misinterpretation or flawed response.

basically in order for Anita's claim to be a valid counterargument, Marcus's argument must have some working necessary assumptions that Anita is working off of...

Apparently Anita's reply is pretty valid in adding a consideration that Marcus maybe failed to account for.

So if we negate Answer choice A:

whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists

whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy cannot raise ethical dilemmas for journalists

This would make Marcus's argument irrelevant because their connection with how "ethical dilemmas" relate to their example of "newsworthy" would not work...then this would cause a chain reaction to Anita's counterargument.

-------

E) for a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision.

I chose this one but I think now looking at it there are a few things wrong with it 😭

B is trying to actually get a stronger assumption from the first sentence...

For Marcus: I know they mentioned "clear, adequate, and essentially correct", which makes the adequate part feel relevant but...
- we only talk about most ethical dilemmas where these traditional journalistic ethics apply...we don't need "every case" to provide us guidance...do we? I don't know? sounds very strong...
- When the quantifiers don't really match I start to become suspicious if this is necessary...(first sentence mentions "most" and even throws in a "likely", but I don't get the vibe that I need all/every case to be guided...
For Anita: We don't know or care what makes something an adequate system of journalistic ethics. We only know for what makes something inadequate (or not adequate).

----------

B) there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information

I feel like this would weaken both Marcus and Anita in some strange way...

Marcus: would weaken the argument upfront.
Anita: Anita doesn't disagree with Marcus that information should be brought to the public, and their focus in their second statement is just bringing up the issue about what might be needed before you release the info to the public (journalists must figure out from the start what is important or newsworthy). So this answer might also just weaken their point...

C) the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are not ethical dilemmas

Similar to E in that we don't know if we need to consider the most serious professional dilemmas...what about just moderate ones? or how about all dilemmas in general? "All" is stronger, yet also not necessary to say here...
- I quickly disregard answers with these very specific quantifiers that aren't supported by the stimulus.
Also Marcus already mentioned "most ethical dilemmas journalists is likely to face"...so not all...which means that basically and potentially there are some dilemmas that aren't ethical, but we don't know which ones...
- for all we know they could be actually the least serious ones that are left out...or a mix of a few serious and unserious dilemmas

D) There are no ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics.

Translation (removing the "negatives"): All ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face would be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics.

I think this is similar to C in that we do not need all ethical dilemmas to be conclusively revolved...Marcus only made sure to talk about Most situations where journalists likely face these ethical dilemmas...Anita even suggested that newsworthy stuff can be guided...but I am unsure if this is meant to be guided to a resolution...
- even replacing all with "most" or "some" would still not change this to be right...

PrepTests ·

PT14.S1.Q7

Bobby68

Edited Friday, Mar 20

I found this one to be tricky and took me too long to get because I literally disregarded an important premise...😭

I treated this one like a Must Be True, even though 7Sage labeled this as an inference. Of course there is maybe a slight difference between the two but I think its nice to treat them in similar ways... ✨

Facts given:

ALL TIMES (all the time/every month) it's a manager's Sale or holiday Sale, or both! (I forgot the "all times" part chat 😭...)
All sales last a month long
if manager wants to highlight a certain product, its a manager's sale!
If a holiday happens during the month, there's a holiday sale!
BUT a month that seems to be special is August, where there is no holiday
- So we can guess that it's only a manager's sale that will happen...since there's always a sale

Diagram form for those that want to see it a little more visually (note: I may diagram "either or" a bit differently than other folks because I already kept in mind that the two sales can happen at the same time when reading the problem)

Things to keep in mind for this question type:

stick to only what given! No outside knowledge!
treat conditionals are rules that you have to follow, anything outside these rules "could be true" or is disproven.
----------------
A) If a holiday falls within a given month and there is no extra merchandise in the warehouse that month, then a holiday sale is declared
- As we know from the policy's last sentence, we need both landing on a holiday and excess merchandise (excess = extra/more of something) in order for there to be a holiday sale.
- If we are missing any of these two (or both), we cannot say there will be a holiday sale.
B) If a holiday sale is not being run, then it is the month of August.
- This one was tricky since we were given a lot to talk about August and that we can figure out it can not have a holiday sale...
- But Actually, just because we introduce something about a particular month, I'm actually not sure if, say, February, also doesn't have a holiday...The stimulus never said August was the only special month that had this happen to them.
  - If I was to say to someone some random info about my friends: that no activity that has to do with art is liked by my friends (that one of my friends doesn't like art), I can't really say they are the only one...maybe I have another friend I never talked about that also doesn't like to do anything related to art. It's very risky for my rival opponent lawyer to say back to me that I only have one friend that doesn't like to do art, because I could come back at them and deny that possibility.
  - Very tricky, but if we see "only" or any word similar to this that makes us know that August is 100% the only one, then B would have been right.
  - But because we only know what this stimulus gives us, adding in the extra assumption that August is the only month, maybe based on real life knowledge or for some other reason, we broke the rules of what we can infer/must be true.
- Additionally the diagram shows that if it is August, we know for sure (it is a must) that there is no holiday and no extra merch. We cannot go the other direction.
C) If a manager’s sale is being run in some month, then there is no excess merchandise in the warehouse in that month.
- I know that we can have both sales! I just don't know exactly what months (besides August) that this happens...but it can happen!
  - I also don't know when there are times with only one sale (besides August).
- So I think this one maybe is if I forgot that we can do both sales at the same month.
- C is trying to say that when we have a manager's sale, no holiday sale will happen. (we need both extra/excess merch and a holiday for a holiday sale, if we miss any of the conditions, we won't get a holiday sale 🥲)
D) If there is not a manager’s sale being run in some month, then there is a holiday sale being run in that month.
- I almost disregarded this answer because I totally forgot that AT ALL TIMES there will be a sale! Always! Every month! 😭💸
- So it must be true that if there is not a manager's sale, there will be a holiday sale!
  - I think if there was an answer choice that also said "If there isn't a holiday sale, then there is a manager's sale", I think that this would also be right, as we need there to always be a sale going on!
- I felt that the whole thing about August was such a huge distraction as I worked myself to figure how the answer choices fit with August not having a holiday sale...🥀
E) If there is no excess merchandise in the warehouse, then it is the month of August.
Similar to C and B (feel free to check out their explanations), we don't know when there will be a sale of one or both sales on any month except August because August was the only one mentioned.
- It could still be true that we fail the conditional that causes us to get rid of the holiday sale, but we can still have the manager's sale going on in some other month besides August...
- Based on the diagram, failing the sufficient for having extra merch will fail the diagram for a holiday sale and the separate diagram for August, but the diagram for the holiday sale applies to all the other months as well. So the possibilities of which other month this holiday sale doesn't happen are there.

PrepTests ·

PT14.S1.Q24

Bobby68

Edited Thursday, Mar 19

I hope this can help people with MUST BE FALSE questions as they were overwhelming but, if maybe finding a method that can make this as simple as possible can make this easier on folks. 💙

🚫 4 could be trues: stuff that either is outside the stimulus or is aligned with the stimulus

✅ Pick the 1 Must be False: something that 100% contradicts the facts (opposite of "could be true" is "could not be true" or false!). It could also weaken the argument if it were inserted as a premises.

We got to make sure the answer contradicts one of these facts given...
Brains of identical twins are genetically identical.
if one twin is schizophrenic, certain parts/areas of the brain are smaller than the other twin
If both are not schizophrenic, no difference in the brain or the brains are the same
The info above provides definitive evidence that schizophrenic is caused by damage to the physical structure of the brain
(physical damage causes schizophrenic)

A) People who lack a genetic susceptibility for the disease will not develop schizophrenia.

None of the premises above lets us know anything about the group that "lack a genetic susceptibility for the disease".
- if anything, we only know about identical twins...a very special group of people. I'm not even sure how many twins even fall under the group A talks about.
This specific group was not mentioned, implied, nor hinted at, and therefore its open to anything that could be true this group.

B) Medications can control most of the symptoms of schizophrenia in most patients but will never be able to cure it.

medications, a cure, and being about "most patients" in general. It's super specific and something none of the premises hinted at all...so for any of these topics, it's also open for anything that could be true.
- if anything, we only know about identical twins...a very special group of people.
No premises addressed anything that we can say this 100% cannot happen.

C) The brains of schizophrenics share many of the characteristics found in those of people without the disorder.

Characteristics was 100% not mentioned in the stimulus...The stimulus did not give us an idea of the twins or anyone behaved differently. Meaning we can talk about it more openly and things could be true about people's characteristics!
Because we need to only stick to what's being given, we should not try bringing outside info.
- I know we may think that schizophrenic individuals and those without this condition behave nothing like each other, and even if this is true in real life, based on the info here, and here only, we cannot know. 🥲
- I have no idea whether small areas of the brain impact or do not impact someone's character.
- If I'm making a lot of assumptions to how this could be false, I think I can say that it's actually something that could be true.

D) It will eventually be possible to determine whether or not someone will develop schizophrenia on the basis of genetic information alone.

We can arguably say that all 3 sentences help disprove this. But mainly I felt the last one carries a lot of weight!

We don't know where this damage in the brain comes from. Genetics? A dangerous accident or injury? The stimulus never told us if the physical damage is always genetics.
- If the damage was 100%/always genetics or the only cause, then we can say we can say there a way we can determine schizophrenia based only on genetics since we have 100% chance of it being the cause to the damage, in which the damage leads to schizophrenia
Since the last sentence leaves itself open to all the possibilities as to what creates this damage, we cannot say that genetic information alone (only genetic information).
we can also use the first and second sentence to support the idea that genetic information alone won't help us, because if the twins are genetically identical already, how do we know which one has schizophrenia? We probably can only know by seeing the actual brain and seeing which one has smaller areas, but if I was given the genetic code only...I'm not sure if I can tell just based on this, nor does the stimulus hint at this.
- Twins can have identical genetic codes, but if one twin got into a bike accident and got a huge scar on their leg, they can still be considered identical in their genetics, but now we can tell them apart by them looking different (one with scar on leg vs one with no scar on leg).

But doesn't "It will eventually..." leave it open to it being it could be true? 🥲🤙❓
- Well, we are given a story and only know things based on what's given...since we weren't given any support that the state of the findings will change/could change, we are now locked with this staying true for the future.
  - Also hinting that it could be true that a change in the info and that we can determine if someone will develop schizophrenia on genetics alone would weaken the author's conclusion so it must always must be false for the argument to work.
- The premises opened itself to the possibilities where this damage that causes schizophrenia comes from that it at the same time closes itself to the possibility that we can determine it just based on genetics alone/only.

E) Brain abnormalities associated with schizophrenia are the result of childhood viral infections that inhibit the development of brain cells.

as mentioned in D, the last sentence left itself open to the cause of the damage being anything (there was no premises or restrictions to it being only one thing or some things), this could be true!
It could be true that a viral infection caused the damage for schizophrenia.

PrepTests ·

PT14.S1.Q25

Bobby68

Edited Thursday, Mar 19

I think I got this question wrong because I was confused about the groups that gained the most calories...

they (the group that drank alcohol) consumed about 175 calories more from nonalcoholic sources (food and other things that don't include the drink itself)

meals with which they did not drink alcoholic beverages (no alcohol)

This is an explain question EXCEPT

So something we have to keep in mind is that there are 4 answers that for some reason, even if we don't fully understand how it works, we know it does something to affect the two groups we are comparing...the one right answer would do NOTHING 🥲.

----------------

A) Diners spent a much longer time at meals served with alcohol than they did at those served without alcohol.

Needs only one small assumption that longer time, means more opportunity to consume more food, or something within this extra time happening for people to consume more calories...
whatever and however A works, it open the opportunity for this to somehow impact the amount of calories consumed.
Reminds me of how mystery cases where we don't know what exactly happened/going on the room with the suspect and victim while we are not watching, yet it's enough time for the suspect that something did happen to impact the case to make them suspect enough.

B) The meals eaten later in the day tended to be larger than those eaten earlier in the day, and later meals were more likely to include alcohol.

Larger meals = more calories
- Eating a slice/piece of apple (10 calories) vs an entire apple (100 calories)
So meals later in the day are larger + higher chance alcohol being served = high chance that people eat more calories with the meals with alcohol compared to other times of day when no alcohol is present.

C) People eat more when there are more people present at the meal, and more people tended to be present at meals served with alcohol than at meals served without alcohol.

This one is very strong in that the amount of calories tend to increase when there is alcohol served 📈
1 apple (100 calories) vs 2 apples (200 calories) with the alcohol.

D) The meals that were most carefully prepared and most attractively served tended to be those at which alcoholic beverages were consumed.

Similar with A, meals more carefully prepared and most attractive is a special situation that can open the possibilities for it to impact the number of calories. Even if we don't know how it works exactly, we can guess that this can do something between the two types of meals mentioned in the answer choice.
More carefully prepared food can impact how much calories are actually staying in the food...I don't know food science but this is my best guess as to something that could happen
Most attractively served can make me want to eat more of it. Not only does it look good, it tastes good! For example, I love frosted cookies, and they look more fancy than a plain cookie with no toppings. I would pick the cookie with the frosting and decorations even though this is more calories for me 😌.

E) At meals that included alcohol, relatively more of the total calories consumed came from carbohydrates and relatively fewer of them came from fats and proteins.

So this one was sneaky in that it was the only answer choice that did not compare the two groups, instead it went ahead and grabbed the entire meal and started to compare where the calories came from within that meal...not difference in calories between meals with and without alcohol as we are trying to find.
requires extra assumptions/story building to make it fit...
How much more total calories? 1 or 100?
Should I also assume that this doesn't also happen with the meals without alcohol?
How much total calories were consumed between the two types of meals we are comparing? We don't know...
This answer choice is saying that say for example, if a person was eating a meal with alcohol was also eating potato salad, more calories came from carbohydrates. Say 100/120 calories were carbs. But the total calories are still a total of 120, but what about the meals without alcohol? They might have a total of 380 calories, which can contradict the stimulus and not explain anything...
This answer leaves out doing a right comparison between the meal types that guarantees that the amount of calories for the group with alcohol was higher...

PrepTests ·

PT14.S4.Q24

Bobby68

Thursday, Mar 19

I hope this helps someone for also future Method of Reasoning questions 💙🌻

What helps me for these questions are:

treating it as that the answer choice must have happened. So all parts of the question must be true.
Asking myself when I'm between answer choices, "does this sound like what is happening here?"
If possible, create an example in your head of a conversation or argument that is applying the methods in the answer choices.

Also!

keep in mind that the questions the investigator asks are meant to be supporting their argument (or why weaken your argument 🥲?). Meaning the questions they ask, they supposedly know the answers to.
for example: "I think that all children should start school at 3 years old. Shouldn't they be already learning grammar at this age?" The author is answering "yeah"!
- taking the question by itself though..."Shouldn't they be already learning grammar a this age?" actually sounds a bit like the author doesn't know the answer to the question and maybe asking genuinely. But because other parts of the argument give context to the author's beliefs, we can safely infer that the questions asked will carry the answer that support's that author's beliefs.

-------------------

A) reject out of hand direct counter-evidence to the investigator’s own interpretation

This one felt the most attractive out of the other wrong answers but rejecting "direct counter evidence" is like replying to an opponent's points and rejecting them. But we are unsure if the things brought up in the form of the questions were brought up by an opponent. I have no clue what the investigator's opponents would bring up to back themselves...
Counter-evidence refers to specific things that were brought up by another party, whether it's an example or a phenomenon to disprove, in this case, the investigator. But the stimulus only described the existence of the subject of debate: the bird-figure.
This answer choice feels like it would fit the two-person dialogue where a person cites/refers to the other's specific points/counter-evidence.

B) introduce evidence newly discovered by the investigator which discredits the alternative interpretation.

First...how do I know this was "newly discovered"? I would probably need some words like "recently", "new/contemporary evidence suggests", "I just discovered"...something that lets me know for sure it's recent.

This one was also tricky because it sounds like it's introducing something new we may have not read before...so new evidence? If anything, the author is actually just describing again how the pattern looks like, which I can only guess the other side already knows about...since the argument is focusing on what the use of the pattern was for.
new evidence is premises that introduce something that we can say is 100% new to try to back up the author, not something that has the chance of already being known.

C) support one interpretation by calling into question the plausibility of the alternative interpretation

(see my "Also!" discussion above for how to interpret questions the author asks)
"support one interpretation"...there is one interpretation that we know for sure exists, which is the author's in that the bird figure is meant for extra-terrestrials/aliens.

This answer can be hard to spot right away as the right one but I think he main thing that can help lock in the answer is the first question the investigator asks: "What use to the Inca would have been closely spaced roads that ran parallel?" This suggests that actually there is no use...and those that would advocate that the Inca people actually have a use (like for roads) for their people are wrong. Nobody in the stimulus has said this yet that we know of, so the author is questioning the "plausibility of the alternative explanation" or questioning the other opinions that others could argue for (but have not yet) like if the figure was used for a road.

D) challenge the investigative methods used by those who developed the alternative interpretation

This is when the author is disagreeing with how the other side got to their conclusions or hypothesis, but we really don't know what the other side believes in other than being anything but the author's opinion. Because we don't know of their beliefs, we can't really say anything of any method that was used to reach those alternative explanations.

E) show that the two competing interpretations can be reconciled with one another

reconcile is the hard and tricky word that can trip up people if they don't know what it means but it means to create a relationship between things, especially in a friendly or positive way.

This is saying the author is showing how the two sides of the argument can actually work together (reconcile). But the author here disagrees with other points of view. There was no indication that the author wanted to agree with anything else but aliens.

LSAT · How to get more comfortable with getting questions wrong?

Bobby68

Edited Wednesday, Mar 18

I stillllll get frustrated on getting stuff wrong and get worried that I won't lock in something when test day comes but...

I don't have much in-depth advice but something that has been comforting me is saying to myself.

"I am getting things wrong today, so tomorrow/test-day I can get it right". 🥹💙

I've been a perfectionist but for some reason this saying has made me say that my perfection should be for test day... and messing up is gonna be the thing I have to do to get to that perfect day...because test day is the important day, not messing up today. 🫂✨

I think taking breaks or finding helpful ways to lock in mistakes so they don't repeat has been a big hurdle but also the biggest thing that has helped me lately. Don't be afraid to take your time on reviewing wrong answers. looking just at one wrong question for a bit can help you get 5 more in the future right!

you got this! and good luck on your studies ✨

PrepTests ·

PT14.S1.Q19

Bobby68

Edited Tuesday, Mar 17

Ok, so I'm writing this one down for myself because I couldn't understand the difference between D and E. So I hope this is accurate/helpful anyone! 💙

author conclusion: meat is healthy!

the evidence to back themselves up was saying that its because most doctors eat meat, then also used their status as health experts/authority to hint that this is also

Even if you don't know the exact flaw, there is something sus about the way I'm still left not fully convinced about meat being healthy...as the audience I was hoping they provided some scientific fact or some study...but we don't see that.
So I do notice the flaw has something to do with what most doctors did (actions) and putting it up against their position (authority/expert status)...
Sounds like the flawed argument I've ran into before is that we shouldn't believe that smoking is bad because the doctor that said that to me also smokes...(this line of thinking also made me get stuck with D 🥲)

Things to keep in mind for flaws:

give it the "Must Be True"/"is this what the author is doing" test...some answers sound good but maybe the second half is where it goes wrong, vice versa!
stick on topic to where the flaw goes wrong. There are millions of things that the author could fail to consider or did not mention, but is it really addressing the thing where you saw the author went wrong?

A) attacking the opponents’ motives instead of their argument

ok this one might be tricky because maybe because the opponent maybe was mixed up with the doctors? But the opponents here are the people the author is addressing off-screen...the supposed person this person was making an argument for
Also...this is me assuming there was a person! What if Smith actually just published this on a blog for the world to see...but no opponents were in mind.

B) generalizing on the basis of a sample consisting of atypical cases

Maybe this one was attractive for the "atypical cases" and that doctors fell under some unrepresentative sample, and generalizing the "meat is healthy"
What does a "a sample consisting of atypical cases" look like? To me this sounds like a group but a few of them got something atypical that can skew the data. But the group is "doctors", and it consists of "most" of them...so doesn't sound atypical to me.
- an example of the flaw B is making is: "Parrots are the worst birds of the flying birds because my white albino birds have a difficult time avoiding objects when flying around my house!" There's many things that could affect these pet parrots, including being in a different environment than all other parrots, or their albino characteristic (white parrots are so cute but their albino traits I think impact their eyesight to be more sensitive to light).
In case the explanation above can be arguably applied here, the flaw being committed here has to do with the actions vs position a person has in society. This flaw is more of a sample bias flaw.

C) assuming at the outset what the argument claims to establish through reasoning

this is circular reasoning flaw.
how to recognize circular reasoning is if you felt the author didn't back themselves up/justify at all...which is different than the author attempting to back themselves but using a flawed method.
The second sentence is their evidence, even if its a bad way to back yourself up, its still evidence, where circular reasoning is missing a justification...

D) appealing to authority, even when different authorities give conflicting advice about an issue

if I'm correct about this one, the second half of the sentence is kinda fluff but the first half is where the weight is carried because it can go by itself without the second half of the answer choice.
Meaning the flaw is just them appealing to authority...which this flaw is more than just this...it takes a step further to say that its the actions these doctors are saying that impacts the argument too...
An example of D would be "Meat is good because most doctors say so." And that's it. It's because they are doctors, we should believe the author that meat is healthy. It's the authority figure/person itself. But the flaw we see in front of us is specifically is about what these doctors are doing that is why we should believe the author...

E) taking for granted that experts do not act counter to what, according to their expertise, is in their best interest

I disregarded E my first time seeing this question because it sounded like the opposite of what I was looking for...but let's break it into pieces:
- taking for granted that = "assumes that..."
- experts do not act counter to what, according to their expertise, is in their best interest = "doctors do not act opposite to what they say to patients/their healthy practices."
So basically the last part is where is important because it's hinting that meat can be unhealthy.
So the author is assuming that doctors are doing things in line of their practice, that eating meat is in line with being healthy. ALSO meaning the author cannot think that it's possible to do something against your healthy knowledge...that you people practice what they preach. And when a health action/decision happens, it's always because its healthy decision.
This answer choice stays on topic with the conclusion of the argument AND is descriptively accurate in relation to the method of argumentation the author is saying here.

PrepTests ·

PT13.S1.Q19

Bobby68

Friday, Mar 13

This one was pretty rough to figure out 🥲

But I can break it down in the hopes that this helps someone.

Facts we are given:

rings are being used as a reliable indicator to measure the years
1 ring = 1 year
These unique tombs use logs only from a specific valley

With this, how can we strengthen the idea that these Pazyryk logs helped determine the age of these tombs?

Things to think about when eliminating wrong answers:

am I creating a story to make this fit as the right answer?
Am I applying many assumptions to make this work?
Am I applying outside knowledge that may conflict with a right answer?

A) The Pazyryk tombs were all robbed during ancient times, but breakage of the tombs’ seals allowed the seepage of water, which soon froze permanently, thereby preserving the tombs’ remaining artifacts.

This answer choice needs extra assumptions to really make it work. A lot!
We are focusing on the relationship between the tombs and the logs and determining the age, things outside this to determine the tomb's age are not helpful.
Even if this was somehow relevant to the tree logs, this is because we assume the artifacts were placed at the same time the tomb was built...what if in this specific tomb, the artifacts were placed hundreds of years after they were built? We can't rely on them then...

B) The Pazyryk Valley, surrounded by extremely high mountains, has a distinctive yearly pattern of rainfall, and so trees growing in the Pazyryk Valley have annual rings that are quite distinct from trees growing in nearby valleys.

This answer is a weaker version of answer choice C because it required extra assumptions to make it work.
We know from the stimulus these builders only use these special trees to build the tombs, and if all trees can be measured accurately by their rings, then even if the tomb used trees from different forests, I can still use those trees from other forests to measure the age of the tombs as long as we have a reliable way of measuring the age of the trees. (see PT111.S3.Q22 for this similar logic). But how do these Pazyryk Valley trees help determine the tomb's age?
But what about the special thickness of these rings? Can't I use that to help when I compare with other trees? Sure! but I'm not left with making assumptions how the distinct part of these trees look like. Maybe there was weird looking rings at one point...Maybe the rings were all the same width because of the yearly pattern of rainfall...but I don't really know from this answer choice!
If we assumed all the rings were the same size because of the yearly pattern of rainfall...then this also wouldn't help me. We need a point of reference to make something stand out...if all the trees were identical and had the same width of rings, I would assume that they are all the same age and think they were cut at the same time.

C) Each log in the Pazyryk tombs has among its rings a distinctive sequence of twelve annual rings representing six drought years followed by three rainy years and three more drought years.

This is the correct answer 💙
This one is the better version of C because there are no assumptions required on how the rings of these trees look like! We have a great point of reference these archaeologists can refer to.
These distinctive rings have a pattern of droughts and rainy years. Even if you forgot how this looked like, maybe you kinda knew from your gut that drought rings and rainy rings must look different, no? And being given a specific year helps me know that if I see this exact pattern on every tree, if the tree has hundreds of rings after this distinct pattern, I know the tree is older and they built that tomb long after the distinct rings showed up. If it's a younger tree, there may be only a few rings after this distinct pattern and I know this tomb is also one of the first!

D) The archaeologists determined that the youngest tree used in any of the tombs was 90 years old and that the oldest tree was 450 years old.

This one was a bit confusing but I think it's incorrect because it sounds very vague and needs more assumptions...
For some reason the word "any" also made this feel vague, it makes it sound like they still have no idea where the youngest and oldest tree even belongs to...and if this is true, this doesn't help me know the age of any of them at all!
I'm not sure if there are other tombs where we haven't identified the age of the trees...we are only given that they determined the age of the youngest and the oldest tree...should I assume they can use this to determine the age of the other tombs? I have no idea.

E) All of the Pazyryk tombs contained cultural artifacts that can be dated to roughly 2300 years ago.

Avoids supporting how it's the Pazyryk Valley trees that are the ones helping us determine the tomb's age.
Again this one talks about the artifacts in that we have to assume somehow the artifacts are placed within these tombs at the same time they were being built.