User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Joined
Jun 2025
Subscription
Core
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Thursday, Sep 25

what if the fire station was on fire #law

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Sunday, Nov 23

I have become much more successful at these questions when I don't map them.

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Tuesday, Sep 23

does this feel really intuitive to anyone else, or I am I being naive?

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Tuesday, Sep 23

al geeh lol

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Saturday, Sep 20

A medical study found that all people who are obese have hypertension. Most of the obese people in this study had sleep apnea.

Therefore, some people with hypertension had sleep apnea.

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Saturday, Sep 20

why do you only distribute the negation symbol to one set??? #help

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Saturday, Sep 20

im hating these quantifier lessons, but i'm being very brave and pulling through.

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Saturday, Oct 18

This was an easy one for my #realenvironmentalsciencegeezers #environmentallaw #unemployablewithoutaJD

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Saturday, Oct 18

Am I getting better or are these all super easy

PrepTests ·
PT133.S2.Q21
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Thursday, Sep 18

I thought this one was intuitively pretty easy!! I hope it was not luck!! Perhaps it is finally clicking!!

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Edited Wednesday, Sep 17

#help #feedback I am confused by the joint sufficient condition framework. I don't like the inconsistency. Isn't the group 3 translation law that you can pick either concepts, negate them, and make them sufficient?

So, would it not apply that you can translate it like:

(/Resident -> /prohibited ->) -> purpose

Then what do you do?

/Resident -> /prohibited and (or?) purpose

If you are not a resident, then you are not prohibited from having a pet (and?) (or?) the pet serves a legitimate medical purpose.

It does not make any sense. It's incredibly hard to follow when you ignore previously established rules. If we should always negate and make sufficient whatever comes after the unless in this particular instance, you should really make that clear.

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Wednesday, Sep 17

he said peepee lol

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Wednesday, Sep 17

No one freak out. I think this is more of a mind exercise. It overcomplicates things when it's really about grasping the main subjects of the necessary and sufficient conditionals without extra noise. Question five in particular is a little silly. It would be a lot more helpful with real LSAT questions, since question five is relatively easy to grasp without kicking it up to the domain.

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Tuesday, Sep 16

i feel like I got this intuitively and then translated to lawgic and messed up lol

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 14

we got em with this one ah question

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 14

went through abcd thinking I was tweaking

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 14

im so gd nasty at these

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 14

Zeugma balls lol

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 14

I wish J.Y would use harder questions for this, but I understand there are certain barriers prohibiting him from it. ugh

PrepTests ·
PT142.S1.Q23
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Thursday, Sep 11

This question is dumb af

PrepTests ·
PT133.S3.Q12
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Tuesday, Nov 11

straight up goofball question

PrepTests ·
PT144.S3.Q25
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Friday, Nov 07

always read the stem first fellas bc I was stressing about time mapping this out for no reason lol

PrepTests ·
PT150.S1.P2.Q10
User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Monday, Oct 06

literally wtf

User Avatar
CeciliaBurton1
Monday, Sep 01

J.Y. Lisan Al-Gaib confirmed??

Confirm action

Are you sure?