Discussions

CMas

Joined: Oct 2025
Subscription: Core

Lessons · You Try - Thermophotovoltaic Generators

CMas

12 hours ago

Please, can someone give me a method that does not involve using negation or "must be true" analysis.

No matter what I do, I cannot prove why something is necessary or why negating something undermines the argument.

I've gotten every single question wrong and I don't understand why an answer is right or wrong.

It honnestly feels more like this is just a "guess and go" question, because there is really no method or strategy for solving this.

#help

LSAT

•

15 hours ago

CMas

I need help on Neccessary Assumptions

To begin, no matter what I do, unless the questions is super easy, I cannot identify what is necessary for a conclusion to be true. I've tried finding a stategy that works for me, but nothing is clicking.

Common suggestions that don't work and why:

Negation technique - Even if I negate something and say it's not true, when I look back at the stimulus the conclusion no longer seems wholeheartedly sound. But it ends up being wrong all the time. Even if I negate something, I cannot identify why it's necessary or not.

Must be True - I suck at MBT questions, but even those are easier than NA's. But again, for the same reason as above, I can't look at a question and identify what is necessary for the argument to be true.

Identify the Gap - Most of the time I ask myself, why does P-> C, which I know is used for Sufficent questions, but it's the only stategy that actually feels like a stategy. But I can't identify a gap or flaw in the logic, becuase 9/10 I'm wrong.

Is there any other stategy to tackling these questions than using the negation technique that could help me identify what is necessary for an argument to take place?

Lessons · You Try - Large Domesticated Mammals

CMas

Yesterday

There has to be a better strategy than just looking at the stimulus/conclusion and asking yourself "what's necessary."

It would be increadibly more helpful if we had a stategy that wasn't just asking ourselves what the question is asking.

Lessons · You Try - French Novelist Colette

CMas

Edited Yesterday

Dude, this negation test thing does not work for me. I cannot for the life of me explain why something is or isn't necessary.

Without the Negation technique I have no strategy for solving these problems, and even using the technique fails to provide the right answer.

I just can't convince myself why something is necessary or not.

Lessons · You Try - Medical Information on Google

CMas

Yesterday

The negation technique does not work for me because even if I negate something, I can still explain why the stimulus cannot operate without it.

The issue with using the Negation technique is being able to prove why the stim CAN operate with wrong answer choices, and can't with right answers

PrepTests ·

PT124.S1.Q20

CMas

Yesterday

I understand why B is not right, but the stimulus really dosen't present the gap that C is suggesting. At least in my view.

C: We cannot infer the hunting behavior of dinaours

P: Becasue lions and Tigers are similar in skeletal structure, yet hunt differently.

To me the "gap" here is that the author is assuming that dinasour skeletons are similar enough that we can't distinguish them.

I understand the argument that P-> C. Here we need to prove why an indistinguishable skeleton means we can't infer their hunting behaviors. But I feel like that relies on the assumption that Dinasour skeletons are similar enough their indistinguishable.

Lessons · You Try - Pin-Tipped and Bladed Etching Tools

CMas

Edited Yesterday

Dude I suck at conditional reasoning.

Lessons · You Try - The Reliability of Subjective Reports

CMas

2 days ago

I eliminated C because I thought "just because something is susceptable to inacuracy, does not gurentee we can't determine present characteristics." That's why I was looking for a "If, then" rule that gurenteed the conclusion about present characteristics

Lessons · You Try - Mayor's Commendation Award

CMas

Edited 2 days ago

I chose B becasue it actually made sense in the context of who SHOULD recive the award. The argument for why B is wrong relys on the fact that "Penn is still eligable. He can still recive the award."

Correct, but the conclusion is who SHOULD recive the award. If they're both eligable that's fine, but if Franklin went above and beyond, then that gives reason why he should be awarded.

I understand why A is right, but I cannot grasp your reasoning for why B is wrong.

PrepTests ·

PT111.S4.Q11

CMas

4 days ago

Doesn't B rely on the assumption that Powerful theories are based on theoretical grounds. To me it just doesn't make sense how we can assume something is based on theoretical grounds nad can't turn around and use that same princple on other questions.

We're told only make reasonable assumptions. There's nothing reasonable about that assumption.

Lessons · Drill - PSA (Rule-Application) Questions

CMas

5 days ago

I'm sorry, but I've watched the video for 3 and I still makes no sense why it's E.

The whole premise is saying that we shouldn't do direct vote becasue we would have more influence over organizational policy if we used officers.

How does giving each member more power (influence) warrent the fact we should use officer election? This sounds more like it's supporting a direct vote instead.

Even if i used POE, if I can't convince myself why E is correct, there is no way I would chose it over something else.

PrepTests ·

PT110.S2.Q12

CMas

Monday, Jan 05

Through POE I came to A. But no way in Hell would I have picked A, I was tunnel visioned and fell down a rabbit hole of second guessing myself.

There is no way I would have looked at this and though - "oh, if they can't understand words, then they must not be telling the truth."

PrepTests ·

PT130.S4.Q10

CMas

Edited Monday, Jan 05

I'm confused. The explanation for why B is not correct says "we have no reason to beleive that the avergae person is eating these highly nutritious fruits"

But D relys on that same assumption. D relys on the assumption that people are eating these "fortified foods." I don't understand why one is reasonable and one is not.

If we know people are eating fruits (albiet, below the threshold we need), then it's more reasonable to say those fruits they do eat already have more nutition.

Lessons · Lesson 4 - City Council's Wisdom (W)

CMas

Sunday, Jan 04

So the reason it's not A and is instead B, is becasue A does not widen the gap between Motorists and the city council. Instead it provides facts about A, but dosen't compare that to B so we can't use it?

Lessons · You Try - New Marketing Campaign (W)

CMas

Sunday, Jan 04

I was 36 seconds over and only chose D as a last second gut decision. My reasoning is far from perfect but here it is.

Stimulus: New marketing campaign. No guarantee of success, but there's a chance.

(essentially, there is a possibility of failure, but a possibility of success).

A - Mentions losses, but does not state how those losses would arise. They may arise from the new campaign, maybe not. We don't know - it's too vauge on that note.

B - (I almost chose this). There are many new products that fail, but that implies that some succeed. The stimulus states that there is no gurentee of success, but there is still the possibility.

B implies there is still a possibility of success.

C - Similar to B. The stimulus implies that there is a possibility to fail and to succeed. There was never any gurentee they would fail.

D - Provides reason why it would be a bad idea to undertake this idea, despite the possibility of success. Invoking a 3rd variable that would hinder the argument.

E - We don't care about other products, only this one. If people demand more of other products that's good, but why should we not at least try to promote this one?

Lessons · You Try - Original Purpose of Copyright (S)

CMas

Sunday, Jan 04

I fucking knew it was E on the actual and BR and still fucking chose B!

Lessons · Lesson 6 - Mild Winter Birds (S)

CMas

Saturday, Jan 03

Dude, this made no sense. C litterally sounds just like an alternative hypothesis and disproves the first premise.

If the 1st premise is saying "mild winters increased forage, which decreased vistis to the feeders" then C claims that "no, the reason they don't come to feeders is becasue of predetors".

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q25

CMas

Saturday, Jan 03

I got it wrong and chose C. I thought D was making the assumptions that the patients were below the threshhold (30% above average).

However, looking back I realized in BR that if the patients are experiencng 12 to 15% higher than average levels, which means they were below the 30%.

I'm honnestly glad I got it wrong because of soemthing like that and no pure confusion.

Lessons · You Try - Abridgement of Hamlet - MSS Review

CMas

Friday, Jan 02

If it's unreasonable to assume that a spectator cannot remeber a speech (one speech), then it's unreasonable to assume an actor does not have a copy of the play. Between C and D there are two competing unreasonable assumptions.

Also, no offense, but how the fuck am I supposed to recognize that the printing press was not invented in the 17th century.

PrepTests ·

PT133.S3.Q26

CMas

Friday, Jan 02

I got this wrong becaue of "almost all" made me eliminate A. I thought almost all meant more than most, so somewhere between 85 - 99%. But the stimulus implies that only 48% beleived he was bad and 52 beleived he was good.

I don't understand how almost all correlates to 48% percent

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q21

CMas

Edited Thursday, Jan 01

For a conditional argument, there is a substantial lack of conditional reasoning in J.Y's methods. If we're approaching this as a conditional argument, I would not have gone down this path.

PrepTests ·

PT113.S3.Q15

CMas

Wednesday, Dec 31 2025

I don't like this answer becasue it forces you to make the implication that Decreasing monthly sales in the 3-month period means decreasing market share.

We're told that MAC's market share decreases (implying others have increased), but thier sales remain constant. For A to be false, we have to assume that if other companies have decreases monthly sales, then they decrease their market share (which contradicts what the stimulus is saying).

I understand that Market share is a mathmatical term, but there are people here saying you don't need that math to understand it. I rule otherwise, because you can't make that implication without knowing Sales corelates to market share.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S3.Q12

CMas

Wednesday, Dec 31 2025

This is a MBT question, despite the wording. The letter writers statements are about "All species being affected by vexone." If it were a MBF we'd be looking for what contradicts that.

But EXCEPT says we're looking for the only correct answer. This is MBT. J.Y's version tries to find what must be false about the Editor's view.

This is a MBT question, despite what he says.

PrepTests ·

PT133.S2.Q19

CMas

Wednesday, Dec 31 2025

This is one of those questions where I would absolutly challenge this on the LSAT, even if it took me nowhere.

As we were taught, AND implies you need both to be true. I understand the argument that if we have one the condition is still satisfied, but that dosen't follow the stimulus logically.

If I have Red, then I'm happy (red -> Happy) and you tell me, "Oh, if you have red AND blue, then you're happy," i would tell you NO. Because that implies that without Blue I'm unhappy. That's not what the stimulus is saying.

You can argue that maybe we do need Blue to be happy, or maybe Blue also makes you happy. But the stimulus does not state that anywhere. I cannot draw that conclusion.

PrepTests ·

PT129.S1.Q18

CMas

Monday, Dec 29 2025

The issue for me is that I do process of elimination. "C" does not scream out to me or suggest in any way that it's the correct answer, which I why I chose E.

I can argue that "Roughly proportional" does not match the stimulus and try to do better next time, but by that point I've already eliminated C. I feel like when we skipped a few points to arrive at "C" and I just can't do that.