- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
tricky tricky. had to reread it multiple times to convince my brain that risk was the word because decrease is what it was doing but jack didnt understand risk meant losing money (if you know insurance this is way easier to understand) than losing your house.
remember that in fill in the blank a conclusion indicator means find the conclusion that is Most strongly supported. Wrong answers will try to play with assumptions.
D is the only one that is relevant to the stimulus that also gives us a conclusion.
i drilled so many of these and got so many wrong in the past that I thought this one was easier than it is.
The goal is to explain the discrepancy.
Stim: we know salt intake tends to increase BP and if you have high BP and lower salt you lower BP.
But on the other hand ( the discrepancy) some people )at least 1) had very high salt but maintained very low BP.
So now you should be thinking how is it that we confirmed lowering salt lowers BP but at least one person showed it to not lower but maintain. This guy or girl seems like a outlier.
A) to be honest this is just confusing and doesnt really show us why there is a difference. if anything just attacks the idea that BP lowers when salt is less.
B) ok, I see why this is attractive. but we are not asked to strengthen or weaken the answer. knowing this info doesnt tell us why the 1st scenario would happen and maybe hints to why the 2nd would happen but not really. lotsw of assumptions would be made.
C) again this really just attacks one of our scenarios rather than explain.
D) doesnt explain anything
E) i read this 1st and didnt even need to read the rest. this means that the 1st scenario of people with hb can reduce by less salt can stand while also telling us why there might be an outlier. if the one person has less salt then the BP would still drop, but in order to maintain a BP they need to have a lot more salt. Boom explains outlier while still allows the confirmation of the 1st scenario.
@ethanahn3903 but i guess u could say the same about advanced technology? no answer says effective tests but in context you can deduce that it would be talking about something in medicine.
@adelisj407 i was also tripped up on this at first but the 2nd pass I said, well i guess we dont know for sure if there is or isnt any noncompetitive sports, and if we had noncompetitive sports then this would probably help those that dont like competition.
@dcdavies625838
its tricky if you gloss over what the argument is actually saying.
Bernard essentially says carl should go and the reasons are that carls ideas are wrong, and we would legitimize the ideas by encouraging him to go. and we should avoid this all.
Ayala on the other hand says: ya Carl's ideas are bad but that is exactly why he should speak. because the best way to combat bad ideas are to challenge them in public.
Admittedly I also glossed over the right answer and got this wrong but I also have gotten this right before.
A) wrong, yes bernard would agree with this but ayala isnt saying that carl going on and speaking would legitimize that view but ayala also could be saying this. we really dont know what ayala thinks about this. If you picked this you probably assumed that ayala agreed with the fact that carl speaking legitimizes the view.
B) Wrong, bernard doesnt have any perspective on this. so we cant assume they would agree or disagree.
C) Right, ayala pretty specifically says this. Ayala in their argument is like ya the best way to fight bad ideas is let them go on stage and look like an ass. But Bernard is like, mmmm i dont know i thinks its best if we just cool off and dont take the chance. (See how they disagree here)
D) neither talk about danger to society, plain and simple. plus you prob read this wrong its not talking about the ideas, its talking about the people inn the answer where bernard is strixtly talking about the ideas.
E) Bernard does potentially agree with this, but again you probably misread Ayala. They dont say that letting carl speak is encouraging the adoption the idea.
ayala again is saying that we should go let carl be an ass onstage so people see his ideas are ass. Please dont misinterpret this as that ayala would disagree with this statement if bernard agrees, ayala simply doesnt have an optinion that we can quote.
I have gotten this one right in the past when I used to score lower on the LSAT, Now I score in the 160's and I got this wrong (Purly from overthinking. AKA overthinking the literal part.
Breaking down the the argument:
The conclusion is pretty clear with the "Therefore" so we know that we are trying to weaken that or make the conclusion "less likely to follow" at the least.
Support: only support given is country needs as much capital from oversees investors and we cant afford any reductionin capital investment.
The conclusion is making a pretty strong statement that they believe the economy could sustain by making laws that make it harder to remove investment.
Most of us probably thought in our mind, well the author thinks the investment wont decrease with that conclusion.
Answer Choices:
D (attractive but wrong). D is attractive because it gives us another scenario where the laws may not have worked. Buttttt we are trying to make the conclusion that we can sustain our economy weaker. this JUST tells us that the laws didnt work on removing capital in other countries. it does not show us that those countries might have stopped recieving funding or the funding got less overall. Also because the conclusion says pass laws to make it more difficult it doesnt mean that removing capital is impossible. this answer is kinda just stating the same thing that the conclusion is saying.
B) this tells us that these laws would discourage investors from investing more. So it is likeley that ass the need for more capital gets greater the total funding gets lower. therefore we probably cant sustain the economy in the long run if we dont have more funding.
I think I originally tend to overthink the conclusion for saying we should pass the laws to make it more difficult as if these laws are passed then capital wont be removed. but in actuality we are trying to weaken why why we should pass the laws. giving us a reason maybe why we shouldnt and B tells us why we probably shouldnt pass the law.
To be honest I got this wrong because for some reason I have been thinking of these questions as SA questions instead of MSS. I chose A because I was having a hard time trying to find an assumption that must be true. But once I looked at it as a MSS, D became more clear because the stimulus realy only talks about how little trained workers can buy more but are also more vulnerable for losing job.
D kinda sums that up.
NA Questions can be hard for me but I always say. What do I need to know before we even think about the conclusion.?
The conclusion says " there is a difference between beauty and truth"
The premises only really talk about the truth part though and not beauty. So to even think about the conclusion we need something that bridges the gap on beauty being different from truth. . that is step 1
step 2: the support to the conclusion says if no difference then most realistic would be the best. (this is new info so keep this in mind) but this premise is supported with the "SINCE" most realistic are ost truthful.
Step 3: Pause and think: it just told us what makes up the truth part. that is most realistic = truth. will the rest tell us about beauty?
Next Premise: Many of most realistic (Truth) are not the best.
Step 4: hmm. it told us what truth is but didnt tell us what the beauty part is. but we do know that many realistic ones are not the best.
So the connection to beauty would be (A) the most beautiful artworks are the best.
If this was negated the most beautiful artwork are not the best then how do we even know that there is no difference between beauty and the truth.
We have to assume this to think about a possibility of the difference between them.
i guess i get why E is right I just get the stimulus lol. This question = Skip and come back 9/10 times for me.
really hard question for especially at the end of a section. When I do SA Questions I typically read and try to find a flaw among paying attention to other things.
It is hard to spot that there is a shift from society to environment. but once you see it, the immediate thought in your head should be, are they connected? That show you spot A pretty easy in my opinion.
If you had unlimited time on this question i think you would eventually figure out the answer by reading the stim over and over.
i feel like this goes against all other LSAT questions. How are we supposed to assume that the author is making a value judgment about the state of the questions. What if the questions were intentionally ambiguous and not poorly phrased.
@bethlehemmakonnen694
B is right because it follows the chain of logic.
Conclusion says Moral agent-- free will.
The premise says moral Agent --- Desire
But remember for NA we are trying to make the conclusion make sense. So how can we make
Moral agent-- free will right?
We are trying to support it by saying that MA--Desire so if this is true. then free will.
MA-Desire-Free will.
You can not say MA-Free Will Desire because this would be supporting using the conclusion to support the premise. We are trying to use the premise to support the conclusion.
We have to link desire to free will so desire requires free will. IIf it did not require free will then we can't really support the conclusion with the premise given because all we really know for sure is that MA requires desire.
@Kevin_Lin
no because A and C are both Sufficient to make B necessary.
C is not required for A just as much as A is not required for C.
I think the conclusion A-B and C-B would be
--------
A or B -- C
Please let me know if I got that right.
I totally understand why E is right but I initially chose D and would like a better explanation. I get there are a lot of assumptions needed to be made but I can't rely on that as my explanation.
Is it wrong because we would say ok if this is the case stop taking supplements and then we can say u still have low Mag therefore it could still be the case that low mag causes Hypertension?
that is my best understanding but want to confirm.
@vsnadarajah978 but in this case the stimulus says it is caused by sun and the moon gravity. Although yes there could potentially be other causes and this is a strong statement. In this scenario it is talking about gravity being the only thing that can affect a tide. B points this out. the argument doesn't consider any other conditions that might also be present where gravity is present potentially having an effect. THis is because the conclusion says that the magnitude (size) is explained only by gravity. Maybe a rainstorm (as said in explination of answer) changes the size of the tide a bit even though it didn't form the tide
@ForeignSherbert Same question! Because I always thought trap answers were the ones that aren't mentioned in the passage. I didn't pick D because I thought i would see an explanation saying never mentioned so we can't determine.
Does Analog in this context mean analogy? because I really just was looking for an answer that said something like the two scenarios are analogous to each other because that seemed to be a flaw. But didn't know what analog meant. But from the explanation it seems like the answer meat they are analogous?
@Chris_M ok instead of deleting I will comment on my comment now that i understand.
i missed the part in the stem where it said the birds had it in the same spot
i did assume right that the argument was assuming the virus was from the same ancestor.
After seeing the part i missed C makes sense that it is random. Because we need to strengthen the assumption that it came from the same ancestor knowing that the virus is in the same spot would be stronger if we knew it was a random location from the beginning. Because after 25M years it be pretty crazy if you can trace both back to the same ancestor and get the same location if it is random. Or I guess it would be less likely to to happen if they were not related.
now that that assumption seems to be fulfilled the conclusion that it is 25m years old seems to be strengthened because the birds came from the same ancestor and both have the virus that is in the same spot. so the bird is 25m years old so would the virus.
I am really struggling to see how C strengthens the argument. is this a case where it just doesn't weaken the argument because i dont see how it strengthens. The argument says that the fragment is always in the same location but C is saying when inserted to the chromosome it is random. This does not get me to assume that it is 25M years old just because the original placement was random. I guess there is a little strength in saying that it isn't likely 2 birds can get the same chromosome spot. But like isn't that kinda extreme? we can't assume that just because it is random doesn't mean it didn't hit the same spot.
To be honest only reason I didn't pick C was because it said animal. But looking at it again, a bee is an animal ( I was thinking animal was mammal with the time pressure). But just shows how overthinking can get you on this test.
this is a great example of where outside work knowledge will help you get this right. Risk in insurance literally is the concept of losing money. if you are "risky" to a car insurance company then you are maybe going to cost them a lot of money. Hence, Liability costs if you ever get into an accident