@PowerUp_Tutoring Great, thanks!

@PowerUp_Tutoring I had the same issue.

Is there somewhere I can directly submit feedback? I am really liking the premises of the app so far, and see lots of potential!

Stim:

C: Deterioration of the brain is caused by microglia (brain immune cells).

P: Deterioration can be slowed by A-acid.

P Microglia impair the brain by damaging healthy cells while trying to kill BA, which cannot be eliminated.

_______________________________

A: Confirms what we know. No additional info to strengthen. Eliminate.

B: Microglia is just another word for the brain's immune cells. A-acid works by slowing the brain's immune system. Great support for the idea that microglia is the cause of deterioration.

C: Wtf? Then there wouldn't be a problem.

D: No it doesn't. Next.

E. So? Immune reactions occur? Good or bad? Do they destroy healthy brain cells? Idk. Does it support anything about Alzheimer's? No. Skip.

@StevenShan Steven why are we doing math

@RubyBlue The point is not about computer vs. paper. The answer choices deem that point entirely irrelevant. We are instead looking to validate the argument.

The conclusion is that the new system will produce an accurate representation of student opinion.

This conclusion cannot be true, unless E is true.

I know this is an old question when the comment section is older than my little brother

What made this admissions cycle so difficult/competitive, and how should we tailor our applications to adapt with the increased competition in future cycles?

@DamiOye Legally Blonde should do the trick

Solved this question in 1:40. Helped a lot to draw a picture in my head.

P: Proposals were only sent to the Dean or the committee.

P: The Dean received one proposal. Could be higher level or something else, we don't know.

P: The committee received more than one proposal. All higher level. Let's say they received 2.

P: All higher level courses require prerequisites.

Inference: If there is more than one new course, one of them will be a higher level course!

Has to be true! Again, let's assume that only 2 new courses were accepted. If both of those new courses were the ones accepted by the committee, since both are higher level courses, they will have prerequisites.

But if one of them was accepted by the Dean, we must assume that the other was accepted by the committee, meaning we know a higher level course was accepted no matter what.

Therefore, AC C.

Felt good to get this one!

P: Some commitments deserve no praise.

Conc: All commitments are morally neutral.

AC E: If there are any commitments undeserving of praise, all commitments are morally neutral.

I like treating these questions like SA. Ensure that conclusion!

@RishabhRaj

The whole distinction is that in passage A:

The author defines beauty as being judged by contemporary audience's knowledge of an event, and their ability to pass judgement about a game being playing with the rules that are familiar with.

In passage B:

Kant describes standards being judged by contemporaty audiences based on the aesthetic beauty of an event.

Therefore, AC A: Author A disagrees with Kant's standards by which contemporary audiences judge performances.

If you have been practicing well, and feel confident, there is no reason to sweat it. Don't add stress when there doesn't have to be any.

I am taking it on Friday. I did a PT today and a PT last week. Other days I have just been sprinkling in some drills. Good luck on your test!

Damn! This is an opposite of a sufficient assumption. Basically, what guarantees the conclusion to be false. When looking at it from that viewpoint, D is much more obvious to be the correct answer. Throwing that in the back pocket.

Almost was fooled by AC E because it passed the 'feels good' test. But wait... E states that the set of regulations as a whole has this effect. This isn't true. Just that each member of this set has this effect.

AC D almost feels too cookie cutter. But that is certainly the best answer on this question.

Felt good getting this one. I had this question flagged, and came back to it at the very end of my section. After re-reading Henry's conclusion, it became pretty obvious. His conclusion is that urban pollution specifically will be reduced.

He doesn't care about air pollution in general, like AC B states. He just cares about urban pollution. That is addressed in AC A. Tricky question for sure.

This one felt good to get right. It took a second re-read, but it became pretty clear.

The commentator criticizes Roehmer's tactics of impugning the motives of her adversaries. But then he says her motive in doing this is to appeal to her loyal readers, thus impugning Roehmer's motives!

Tricky, but pretty quick to answer if you catch.

@sofistar I think you are making too many assumptions.

D is way too strong of an answer choice. We are only concerned with belief in ideas not intended by the author. It doesn't matter if they understand what the author actually did intend.

P: Authors of great poems never intend contradictions

P: Sometimes, readers find contradictions anyways

---------------------------------------

C: The meaning of the poem is not always what the author intends it to be

This rests on the assumption that if a reader believes something an idea in a poem to be true, then that idea is indeed true of the poem. If this wasn't true, that means there is an objective meaning of a poem, probably intended by the author, negating the conclusion.

Something about the way the stimulus and question was worded melted my brain into goo.

I got the right answer after like 3 minutes of sitting in my chair like a statue. Somehow E makes more sense to me after seeing that it is indeed the right answer. Just don't know why it took so long.

I believe in less being more regarding PTs. PTs are great for measuring what level you're at, but do not do much for you in terms of making progress. Keep hammering drills like you have been. If you want to train your brain to sit and focus on a lot of questions for long periods, doing a couple of full LR or RC sections back-to-back will do the trick.

My biggest reason for this is that there are just so few PTs released by LSAC. Only the last several PTs (I'd say 150+) give you a good simulation of the modern test. If you burn through these in training, you will not have a good baseline when test day actually comes.

I think it is safe if you want to do one per month, at the end of the month to see where your progress is. Take older tests for this (120-140). Just be mindful that these tests are different than the modern tests (some say they are easier, and I agree). As you get closer to your testing date, start taking more of the newer tests to prepare yourself for testing day.

To give you an idea, over the past year I've taken MAYBE 6 full PTs. I take my test this Friday, and have taken 2 this week, both newer. Even with so few PTs taken, I am comfortably in the 170's. Drilling weak points is the most important thing you can do to increase score.

Good luck studying!

P: Most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages and can be read without learning an ancient language.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

C: People aspiring to be ancient history scholars need not learn ancient languages.

Loophole: What if they document they want to read has not been translated?

AC A: Yeung had less supporters that could vote than Panitch. This fails to explain why Yeung beat Panitch, in fact, it works against it.

AC B: If 100 people were polled:

40 favor Panitch.

30 favor Yeung.

30 favor Mulhern. If Mulhern drops out, who is to say that his supporters don't switch to Yeung? This explanation works.

AC C: Introduces the potential of bias in the poll, leading to inaccurate poll results. Works.

AC D: If Panitch has 100 supporters, and Yeung has 90:

Panitch has more supporters. But only 30 of them saw the election as important enough to vote, meanwhile over 70 of Yeung's supporters thought the election was important, leading to more of them voting. Checks out.

AC E: Another choice that introduces the potential of bias in the poll, leading to poll results that did not align with reality. This explains the discrepancy.

I was able to get this one in good time.

Stim:

P: If A then B

P: If C then D

------------------

C: If D then B

That's just a bad assumption to make. Good match on AC B. Cat

╱|、

(˚ˎ 。7

|、˜〵

じしˍ,)ノ

@akikookmt881 How did you make this post in 2017 when it says your account joined in April 2025?

I almost had a stroke reading this question stem the first time