Discussions

Charles

Joined: Jun 2025
Subscription: Core

PT126.S1.Q23

Charles

Thursday, Jul 31

Yo I was able to recognize B as the strongest strengthener but i hesitated because it didnt seem like it strengthened the relationship between the premises and conclusion. B kinda had nothing to do with the premises and stole the premise's kill. really none of them related to it. Each AC strengthens the conclusion enough that the premise in the stimulus is redundant or so weak in comparison or just irrelevent.

It seemed like A was the closest to strengthening that relationship as it tried to make the generalization between the students and the world more plausible by showing that the pattern goes beyond just her class. Its not strong by any stretch but it at least plays with the premises.

when are we able to accept an answer that doesnt affect the relationship between the premises and conclusion? or maybe im wrong in assuming that the relationship is not being affected?

Lessons · You Try - Large Domesticated Mammals

Charles

Thursday, Jul 31

maybe im missing something here but B doesnt seem necessary to the argument.

even if it is easier today to domesticate animals, that shouldnt mean that it isnt still difficult to do so today. it makes it less relevant to the past but not enough to destroy the argument.

maybe my standard of necessity is too high? I thought it was an assumption without which the argument cannot follow.

Lessons · You Try - Plaintiff's Request (S)

Charles

Thursday, Aug 21

can someone explain why this isnt a PSA q?

Is it about the strength of the assumption?

Lessons · You Try - Sensibly Interpreting Promises

Charles

Monday, Jul 21

kinda confused: it seems like the teachers prephrased anwer doesnt map on to the missing assumpion.

He says: If taking love to refer to feelings renders the marital vow nonsensical, then one should not take love in the context of a marital vow to refer to feelings.

But this still leaves open the possibility that marital vows could be nonsensical, and thus love in this context could refer to feelings.

This gap is fixed by D, which basically says that promises must make sense, which guarantees the conclusion.

Am i wrong here?

Lessons · You Try - Development of Insight and Effective Education

Charles

Sunday, Jul 20

So, i got the answer right after a solid amount of time and extensive use of the negation test. But i stumbled upon a realization in figuring it out.

the question states "The educator's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?". but there are TWO gaps that need to be filled for it to follow logically. We fill one with the ACs - but just because we assume that efficacy requires developing insights, does that mean that the conclusion follows?

No, because the conclusion says that traditional classrooms are ineffective, so we still need to show that they are not a social process for it to follow. So because it still doesnt follow, is the question stem definitionaly misleading or at least completley innacurate when it says that conclusion follows logically if D is assumed?

I am wondering how misleading the question stem is allowed to be on the LSAT? the stem here implies that the conclusion will follow logically once the assumption is made - but it doesnt, even with the correct answer assumed.

PrepTests ·

PT146.S3.Q24

Charles

Tuesday, Aug 19

Like should i diagram this as: interpreted <-> (1 or 2 or 3)? or (1 or 2 or 3) -> interpreted?

PrepTests ·

PT146.S3.Q24

Charles

Tuesday, Aug 19

the more I look at this the more i see SN confuson. every explanation i see says it must affect development of more than one national tradition to be a work of world lit.

uhh but where do they get the must from? I get that it must be interpreted and received in both home country and external countries. but affecting development (those three sufficient conditions for interpretation can be considered development) is only a sufficient condition for being interpreted in a country. This means that there are other possible ways to be interpreted OTHER than by affecting development. so E should be wrong because it could be the case that a work is part of world literature and does not affect the development of any countries. It never said that affecting development is necessary for interpreted which would make sense.

Is there a quirk to the phrasing here such that i should consider the entire disjunctive condition (1,2,3) as necessary while each condition therein is sufficient on its own? im thinking of the phrase "at least one of three ways" from the stim. does this imply that if a work is interpreted in a country then it must be that authors of that tradition use work in one of those ways? If so why did JY not mention it in the explanation? he seemed to agree that these conditions are merely sufficient. (love you JY)

maybe its a quirk of MSS?

@help

PrepTests ·

PT144.S2.Q19

Charles

Monday, Sep 15

I just thought that personal motivations never affect an argument in the strict logical sense so i ruled it as descriptively innacurate.

Can someone tell me why im wrong?

PrepTests ·

PT148.S4.Q8

Charles

Saturday, Sep 13

I got the answer right but then wrong on BR. mans says that those laws HAVE revatized communities, not that they intended to do so. this is a broken question to me

LSAT

•

Saturday, Jul 12

Charles

Blind Review Confusion

Hey yall, just subscribed to 7sage. I wanted to do a practise section with a show answer option to warm up, but this function is unavailable. I understand that this is because of the emphasis on the blind review model which i think will be beneficial. I havent been able to find a proper explanation of how blind review works on this site tho. where might I find an explanation? are you able to do blind review for practise sections or just full tests? is there an option to toggle it? how does BR work? does it automatically take you to a blind review part following the section?

PrepTests ·

PT135.S2.Q23

Charles

Monday, Aug 11

ooof hot take but I think the tutors are wrong here in a way.

JY explains A by saying "If the colony is to survive forever, it must be that they will produce enough food for themselves in the form of other organisms and prevent oxygen from coming into direct contact with the colony"

But I dont think this is true because the stim only says that those two factors are sufficient for it to survive indefinitley.

But A is still right but for different reasons. All A says is that it is POSSIBLE for a dense colony of bacteria to survive indefiinitly by killing other organisms and prevent oxygen from harming the bacteria. so the conditional reasoning is sorta irrelevant in this AC. it is just possible based on the info in the stimulus. this fits the mold of typical MSS ACs as well.

Please tell me if im wrong tho!

PrepTests ·

PT147.S1.Q10

Charles

Sunday, Sep 07

we are told that snow ice cools planet by reflecting sunlight into space and it does this better than non ice land and water. so if most of the earths atmo heat comes from light bouncing in atmosphere (AC D), then this should support the claim that the more snow and Ice the cooler the planet.

but another good answer (C) is that land and water warm the atmosphere. if more snow and ice is present this means that less land and water is present. and if L and W heat up the earth and theres less of it and is replaced by something that cools it, then this strengthens.

But i chose the former (D) because the claim is super broad: increase snow and ice will cool the atmoshere. the latter (C) leaves open the possibility that there is other factors that may impact atmospheric temps more that the reflection of light. so even if the water and land heat the earth, they may do other stuff that cools the planet. but the former resolves this by saying that the main factor for atmospheric temps is reflection of sunlight. i saw C as the weaker answer also because it was already said in the stim that snow and ice cools the planet better than land and water. So this defs would strengthen but it strengthens an aspect already accounted for. But D helps resolves greater weakness in the argument by saying the mechanism by which snow and ice cools the planet is the most important factor. protecting the arg from the possibility that there are other aspects to atmospheric temps that are more important than reflection that land and water may do better. like what if we found out that sunlight moving through the atmosphere has a weak impact on temp - this REALLY weakens the argument.

I stand by D, pls tell me why im wrong!

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q22

Charles

Saturday, Sep 06

Lol i thought i was looking for the flaw in Changs argument

Lessons · Lesson 7 - A Trip to Mars

Charles

Thursday, Sep 04

K this is a unique misunderstanding im hoping someone could help me with

what i am confused about is that the arguer said that at ANY GIVEN stage, the odds are unlikely. This is still true, no? he basically said, pick a stage, any stage, your odds of survival are pretty good at that stage. this is fair to conclude. if odds of survival at every stage is 90%, then at any stage surval is 90%, no?

Now I get that he is trying to say that survivability is higher for the whole trip and that why its a parts whole. but to call that the flaw is innaccurate because all hes trying to prove is that the claim that odds of survival are really low is EXAGGERATED. so all he has to do is show that the odds are not as grave as the critic claims for it to follow.

we dont know what the critic considered in arriving at his conclusion so we cant really assess this argument. but if the new information about the backup systems at each stage was not considered by the critic then this argument is fine. the backup system improves survivability at each stage. now, this alone is not enough to say that the WHOLE trip will BE LIKELY TO SURVIVE. but the arguer ISNT proving that. he is just saying that its exagerated.

Even if there were 1000 stages and survivabiliity was at a fraction of a percent, if this new information in the argument shows that survivability is just a tiny bit higher, then hes successfully proving that the critics claim is exaggerated.

Remember, he NEVER said that disaster is unlikely for the whole trip, but just at any given stage. I think that is true.

Help me out pls

PrepTests ·

PT127.S3.Q25

Charles

Friday, Aug 01

so confused on this one

i was torn between B and E. both of them seemed to require so many additional assumption to make them truly necessary. E seemed to be a sufficient assumption. But to be necessary, E requires assuming that there is no other available farm raised or sandless mussles and that if they do not contain sand then the step can be skipped. B required assuming sand is not required for the cleaning process to work and that the method works for contaminants other than sand.

thus, B and E seemed equally necessary

But I picked C after a long analysis and still trying to figure out why its wrong. I ignored it at first because it didnt say whether it affects it in a negative or positve way.

But the way I saw it, since hes following a recipe, and it calls for corn meal to be used on the mussels, and (if) the corn meal impacts the taste, then it would prove that he cant skip the step because he would be not be adhering to the recipe, regardless of whether or not it affects it negatively.

the only assumption required for C to be necessary is that the goal of the chef is to imitate the recipe as best as possible to mimick the taste of the original (whether negative or positive). this seems reasonable to me, moreso than the other contenders. so whether or not it affects it negatively, it should be necessary that corn meal does not affect the taste. because, if it affects it at all, then his recipe is off.

can anyone tell me why this is wrong? or why the other answers are less wrong?

-1