User Avatar
CMas
Joined
Oct 2025
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 170
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT136.S2.Q4
User Avatar
CMas
Monday, Jan 26

Effective vs. Efficent. Damn

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q13
User Avatar
CMas
Monday, Jan 26

I think a better way to think about this than what the video provides is below:

If you're arguing that "we don't know if falling apart makes it impossible to detect." Then humor me this - if it were not the case, and we could detect methane after it falls apart, how can we tell the difference between 1,000 year old methane and recent methane.

"Well, maybe some of the methane wasn't hit yet." That implies some has, so we still won't be able to tell the difference.

C and D echo the issue I've mentioned above. If we can detect it after it's broken apart, how do we know it's recent?

In contrast, B says that all methane is exposed to sunlight. "But how does that prove it's recent." Because only recent methane would be whole and not broken apart.

1
PrepTests ·
PT130.S4.Q21
User Avatar
CMas
Monday, Jan 26

I would argue that D relies on an assumption itslef and for that, I crossed it out.

"Incorrectly estiamting their own chances" dosen't have to mean they OVERESTIMATE. It could very well be they underestimated thier chances, and still won.

I don't think it's fair to just assume that incorrectly estimating your chances means you overestimate them.

1
PrepTests ·
PT102.S2.Q24
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 25

This is not very well explained in the video or the little dialouge box beneith the answer choices.

I did not chose E because it dosen't make sense to balance retirbution with NOT trading with country X. The consequcnes for our interest in commiting to that action (retribution) is loosing out on some form of trade.

I can't comprehend why we're pinning retribution with NOT trading. Can someone please dumb this down for me?

1
PrepTests ·
PT103.S1.Q14
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 25

I think the reason people didn't chose B was because "handling" happened before treatment, so we assumed that it would be sterile after going through the process.

But it's not like handling sugical equipment. Think of it like tankards holding the pollution. If those tankards create pollution, then it wouldn't be involved in the process to sterile the waste

1
PrepTests ·
PT137.S4.Q18
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 25

The issue I'm taking with this question is the "SOME" part here. How can I rule out a possibility of birth order having an effect on personality if I can't detect all of them.

If it's true I can detect some (but they're not there) then I can't claim that there is no effect becasuse there are still some I haven't detected that can have a lasting effect.

The same is true if I negate it.

Compared to the rest, A is better, but I cannot prove it's right.

1
PrepTests ·
PT127.S1.Q22
User Avatar
CMas
Saturday, Jan 24

I'm sorry, but when does Minority = most? That's the whole reason I crossed out A because I thought minority means less than half

2
PrepTests ·
PT142.S2.Q17
User Avatar
CMas
Friday, Jan 23

@hannahhuynh God you're wonderful, thank you.

2
PrepTests ·
PT116.S4.P1.Q2
User Avatar
CMas
Thursday, Jan 22

I'm sorry, I may be confused for a stupid reason, but E dosen't make sense. How is the quoted sentence NOT a conflict of interest.

In the context of the sentence, the author is stating that a lawyer has obligations to defendent AND to the court (in equal value). How does that not represent a conflict of interest?

1
Lessons · YOU TRY: Stated Question 2 (Natives and Cameras)
User Avatar
CMas
Monday, Jan 19

Yeah, I'm a bit confused. The only reason A seems right is because it's the only one talked about in the passage.

But I don't think the whole passage is answering. It seems more about why video tech is good for cultures. The Kayapo are just an example

2
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q20
User Avatar
CMas
Friday, Jan 16

Am I the only one who saw E and said that "something" is Global Recessions. I don't understand why J.Y replaces "something" with "predicting." That dosen't really make sense

1
PrepTests ·
PT124.S1.Q14
User Avatar
CMas
Tuesday, Jan 13

I'm wondering what the exception here is.

Previously, when given multiple sub conclusions in a passage, we've always split the sentence in "sub conclusion" and "premise".

Why is this an exception to the rule?

1
Lessons · You Try - Superconductor Development
User Avatar
CMas
Tuesday, Jan 13

@AutonomousTacticalTheory This is probobly too late, but maybe someone will see this.

Claim - Conclusion/statement. Generally won't be support or context (don't rely on that, but good indicators)

Generalization - These will refrance the general/broader subject than the stimulus. (Ex. Population vs. a few people).

Assumptions - Don't know yet, haven't come across them. But I think the excerpt won't be found in the stimulus but is needed/sufficent for it to be true.

2
Lessons · You Try - Residential Garbage Policy
User Avatar
CMas
Tuesday, Jan 13

I'm confused. B appeared to be refrancing the "however" statement. The excerpt definetely did not sound like it was offering and alternative to support a practice the argument was claiming.

That sounds a lot more like the "however" statement.

1
Lessons · You Try - Preserving Old Film
User Avatar
CMas
Monday, Jan 12

@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.

As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things

5
Lessons · You Try - Thermophotovoltaic Generators
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 11

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

2

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?

3
Lessons · You Try - Shrinking Applicant Pool
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 11

@prabh That doesn't work for me. Even when I ask myself this question, I still find reason why the argument falls apart.

Is there any other stategy to attacking these problems than using negation technique?

1
Lessons · You Try - Large Domesticated Mammals
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 11

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.

3
Lessons · You Try - French Novelist Colette
User Avatar
CMas
Edited Sunday, Jan 11

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.

4
Lessons · You Try - Medical Information on Google
User Avatar
CMas
Sunday, Jan 11

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

3
PrepTests ·
PT124.S1.Q20
User Avatar
CMas
Saturday, Jan 10

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.

1
Lessons · You Try - Pin-Tipped and Bladed Etching Tools
User Avatar
CMas
Edited Saturday, Jan 10

Dude I suck at conditional reasoning.

7
Lessons · You Try - The Reliability of Subjective Reports
User Avatar
CMas
Saturday, Jan 10

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

5
Lessons · You Try - Mayor's Commendation Award
User Avatar
CMas
Edited Friday, Jan 09

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.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?