- Joined
- May 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Bruh I fell for this same trick before. Have to remember that a term that is too ambiguous is more than likely a trap by the LSAT writers
@Hanifa I agree. I was originally anticipating an AC that showed identical twins in a different environment that developed differences in belief, style, and careers. This just showed that I missed the point of the conclusion. The conclusion was stating that environment has nothing to do with the way the twins develop and that it is all purely genetic. D shows the opposite: that identical twins are influenced by the environment.
Yo we made it😭!!! Good job everyone who is reading this and good luck the rest of the way!!
@SophieLuz I had this issue at times but realized it was because I never close out the tab. If you refresh the page then it stops doing that!
Lowkey, writing those low res summaries down and mentally restating each line in my own words helped me so much in remembering when it came to questions.
I see what they were trying to do with this one. They wanted us to conflate the drama being proof of the emergence of free will with the drama being the source of the emergence of free will.
Looked at A, then did the shallow dip and immediately started second guessing myself that it was right but it fit the reasoning so perfectly that I went with it. Glad I did!
Hello everyone! I am just about finished with the LR section of the CC and am wanting to know if its a good decision to begin incorporating full section drills into my weekly study to reinforce everything I have learned up to this point? Please let me know as I would love to hear what you all have done or are doing!
I remember doing this question in one of the drills during Foundations and I got it wrong. The question tries to trick you into forgetting about the last sentence: Assume that people are listening to the restrictions being placed. This then comes down to the fact that most of the air conditioning probably isn't being used in residential areas but in other areas.
A: this one is wrong because we are told that air conditioning did in fact overload the power grid. For us to choose this answer we have to go outside of the scope of facts we were given and assume that the analyst left out additional factors. If we take what the analyst says at face value, then we simply can't conclude that there were other factors involved. This is at best weakly supported.
C and E: might be true and might not be true. Even if they are true they don't explain why the power grid overloaded even though people cut back on their AC use. C requires assuming that using more efficient AC's would have prevented the phenomenon. E isn't even related
D: as mentioned above, it goes against what the stimulus already said. The residents did listen to the restriction and the power grid was still overloaded.
Feel like I am getting into a flow state with these LR questions! The curriculum has helped me a lot, and the podcast has helped me too (shoutout Alex and Bailey)! I am truly enjoying my study time and can't wait to get to the PT part of my plan (after RC of course😭).
it can definitely be easy to get fooled by sub-conclusions, but what has helped me is what the foundations discussed: Asking how/why in regards to the statement you are reading. If the other lines answer the how and why AND the current statement does not also answer the question why for another statement, then it is the main conclusion. I find that I can pretty much do that sub-consciously now for the most part but for a stimulus that is a bit challenging, simply asking how or why is extremely helpful.
wowww this one got me but the discussion helped a lot. Essentially what is being said is:
Some cultivars of corn are much more closely related morphologically to sorghum than some cultivars of corn are to most other cultivars of corn.
The reason why is is hard to see it initially is because of the way the sentence is structured. It wants you to blindly use the tools without actually thinking of what is being said
number 2 got me...was a good reminder to not coast through the question. I originally misconstrued the authors reporting of the scientists' conclusion as the author's own conclusion which was incorrect
I got this wrong because I was too focused on the subject being book stores. The conclusion is that, because the stats indicate a decline in revenues from the sale of fiction, the national campaigns that have been implemented to encourage people to read more fiction have been unsuccessful. My mistake was looking for an AC that discussed bookstores being benefited in some way by the national campaigns instead of looking at how the national campaigns have been successful in other areas. AC A effectively does this by showing that, although the campaign hasn't helped bookstores increase revenue, it has acheived its goal by helping Mail order book clubs experience growth in fiction sales (i.e. encouraging people to read more fiction in mail order book clubs). Hope this helps someone else!