- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Unfortunately, the grind cannot stop :(
Admissions profile
Discussions
Conclusion: First-year students with high levels of spending on recreation could reduce that spending WITHOUT increasing their anxiety or depression.
Evidence: Anxiety/depression levels the same. Highest levels of spending = lowest levels of spending
Why is B wrong?
B is saying that first-year students at the moderate levels of spending actually have the LOWEST levels of anxiety/depression compared to the highest-level and the lowest-level students. If this is true, then it would strengthen the author's argument because if the highest-level spending students decrease to the moderate level, then they wouldn't be increasing their anxiety or depression. Instead, they would be lowering it. This supports the author's conclusion entirely.
C is just outta da ballpark. Why do we care about those 40-60 year-old adults?
Weaken
Stimulus: Scientists compared a large group of joggers who habitually stretch before jogging to an equal number of joggers who don't stretch before jogging. Both these groups roughly got the same number of injuries. Conclusion - stretching before jogging does not help prevent injuries.
Goal: We need an answer choice that weakens the support from premises to conclusion. Perhaps, there are alternative reasons that stretching before jogging could actually prevent injury. Maybe in the experiment, they got old ass people as the before-jogging-stretchers and young folks in the no-before-jogging-stretch. Either way, we gotta show that the author's reasoning is ass.
A.) Okay, cool. We still need to explain why the hell the number of injuries in both groups were roughly the same. Skip.
B.) Hm. Lame. We still know that one group stretched before jogging and the other did not stretch. How would this weaken the argument? Skip.
C.) No, this would actually support the author's argument. Opposite of what we want. Skip.
D.) I did not like this answer, ewwww. Anyway, ding ding ding. If the more prone a jogger is to injuries and develops this habit of stretching before jogging, then this could demonstrate that perhaps group 1's (the stretching before jogging group) stretching actually prevents injuries. This is 'cause they were compared with group 2 (the no stretching before jogging group), and each group had roughly the same amount of injuries. If a group that is already prone to more injuries develops stretching before jogging, and then is compared to a new group that doesn't stretch at all, and in the end both groups actually have roughly the same amount of injuries, then perhaps stretching does prevent injuries (in this case, even more injuries for the more prone-to-injury group). Crazy.
E.) I fell for the trap smh. Wrongggg. The stimulus was about prevention, not about severity. We need an answer choice regarding stretching before jogging. We don't care about other studies.
RRE EXCEPT
Stimulus: 24-year study of 1500 adults revealed high intake of foods RICH in beta-carotene were less likely to die from cancer/heart disease than those crappy adults who had low intake of beta-carotene foods. However, according to a separate study of 20000 adults, taking beta-carotene SUPPLEMENTS for 12 years had no positive/negative effect on the health of those adults.
What is surprising here?
Well, why is having a high intake of foods with beta-carotene associated with less likely to die from cancer/heart disease (24-year study), but taking beta-carotene supplements for 12 years have no positive/negative effects on overall health?
We in a real pickle here, and something ain't making sense. Since this is an RRE EXCEPT, we need an answer that actually doesn't resolve this discrepancy. Something that does nothing, or maybe weakens it.
Answer Choices:
A.) Def explains it. Skip.
B.) Yup, explains it. Helps explain why the adults taking the supplements in the 12-year study did not show any positive/negative effects on their health. They just needed to take it longer maybe. Skip.
C.) Explains it. Supports the 24-year study and how those adults eating rich beta-carotene actually helps in nutrients. Skip it.
D.) Tricky asf smh. Hate this one tbh lol. However, this answer choice actually does nothing to the discrepancy going on. My understanding of the answer choice is that if each half of the 20000 adults in the 12-year study were given either the beta-carotene supplement or a placebo, then we should expect that the adults who were given the beta-carotene supplement should have a positive/negative effect on their health. However, we know from the stimulus that this wasn't the case and from the answer choice that this did not happen. And so, the discrepancy still stands. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't do squat. Ding ding ding. Correct.
E.) I also hate this answer choice. This actually explains the discrepancy going on in the stimulus. This answer choice says that in the 24-year study, there were less people who smoked and ate high amounts beta-carotene-rich foods than people who smoked and ate low amounts of beta-carotene-rich foods. The hypothesis still stands because it still shows that eating high amounts of beta-carotene-rich foods =correl= less likely to die from cancer/heart disease since you smoked less than those that smoked more and had low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods. Skip.
RRE EXCEPT
Stimulus: 24-year study of 1500 adults revealed high intake of foods RICH in beta-carotene were less likely to die from cancer/heart disease than those crappy adults who had low intake of beta-carotene foods. However, according to a separate study of 20000 adults, taking beta-carotene SUPPLEMENTS for 12 years had no positive/negative effect on the health of those adults.
What is surprising here?
Well, why is having a high intake of foods with beta-carotene associated with less likely to die from cancer/heart disease (24-year study), but taking beta-carotene supplements for 12 years have no positive/negative effects on overall health?
We in a real pickle here, and something ain't making sense. Since this is an RRE EXCEPT, we need an answer that actually doesn't resolve this discrepancy. Something that does nothing, or maybe weakens it.
Answer Choices:
A.) Def explains it. Skip.
B.) Yup, explains it. Helps explain why the adults taking the supplements in the 12-year study did not show any positive/negative effects on their health. They just needed to take it longer maybe. Skip.
C.) Explains it. Supports the 24-year study and how those adults eating rich beta-carotene actually helps in nutrients. Skip it.
D.) Tricky asf smh. Hate this one tbh lol. However, this answer choice actually does nothing to the discrepancy going on. My understanding of the answer choice is that if each half of the 20000 adults in the 12-year study were given either the beta-carotene supplement or a placebo, then we should expect that the adults who were given the beta-carotene supplement should have a positive/negative effect on their health. However, we know from the stimulus that this wasn't the case and from the answer choice that this did not happen. And so, the discrepancy still stands. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't do squat. Ding ding ding. Correct.
E.) I also hate this answer choice. This actually explains the discrepancy going on in the stimulus. This answer choice says that in the 24-year study, there were less people who smoked and ate high amounts beta-carotene-rich foods than people who smoked and ate low amounts of beta-carotene-rich foods. The hypothesis still stands because it still shows that eating high amounts of beta-carotene-rich foods =correl= less likely to die from cancer/heart disease since you smoked less than those that smoked more and had low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods. Skip.
Goal for causal strengthen - rule out other explanations to ensure that the main explanation in the stimulus is really the true explanation.
Wow so long omg. After process of elimination, I was between B and C (ughhhh). Should've listened to my gut about how B was way too strong.
Stimulus: Japanese haiku has three lines with five syllables in the first line, seven in the second, and five in the third. English poets tend to ignore this. English poets disregard the syllable count, and generally call any three-line English poem with a "haiku feel" a haiku. This shows that English poets have little respect for foreign traditions, even those from which some of their own poetry derives.
Whoa there, buddy. That is a mighty big jump you did. Homie went from talking about how English poets tend to ignore the Japanese haiku, then that means that all English poets must have little respect for all foreign traditions. Can't be discussing one foreign tradition and concluding about all foreign traditions.
Which brings us to B.
Stimulus: Either expressed or unexpressed, a contract exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits (both benefit). Therefore, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between them and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.
Idek if this is really a reciprocal transfer of benefits between the artist and the public. I can see how the artist benefits (gets public funds $$$$), but the public is expected to benefit. How? In what way? We need more deets on this part because ain't nothing reciprocal here.
A.) Not sure where the "rule of conduct" comes into play, but didn't like the second part of how "confers benefits on all parties involved." I didn't see that all parties here benefitted. Artist was being selfish imo.
B.) Bingo. This is where the author messes up. Applying a definition to a situation where it only half applies.
C.) I don't see how the author was speaking in abstract terms. I thought everything was pretty much explicitly stated. I also don't see how the author discusses anything being "contingent."
D.) Mental? Emotional? Nope.
E.) Why are we making this political lol.
Conclusion: Favored theory to explain the extinction of dinosaurs, and other species, has been the globally catastrophic collision of a large asteroid with Earth. Why this theory? Extraterrestrial chemical element of dust found worldwide at a geological level laid down contemporaneously with the supposed event.
New Theory: Asteroid impact, who cares. It was actually the volcanic activity that caused the extinctions by putting enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the planet. Look at the Deccan region of India (has lots of volcanic flows that occurred within the same time period as the supposed asteroid impact and the extinctions).
What is the necessary assumption of the new theory?
New concept mentioned = "massive volcanic activity." How do we know that the asteroid didn't cause the massive volcanic activity? I need an answer that addresses the "massive volcanic activity."
A.) If negated, this would destroy the new theory's main point. The new theory rules out that the asteroid was the cause. If the massive volcanic activity was caused by the asteroid, then they wrong. Bye bye argument.
B.) This is nice, but not necessary. This would just hurt the new theory, and supports the asteroid theory.
C.) Not necessary. This supports the asteroid theory.
D.) Nice that they're finally mentioning the volcanic stuff, but this is still not necessary. This is nice, but once negated, doesn't destroy the argument.
E.) Not necessary. If anything, this would just make the entire argument bad. Negated, doesn't hurt the new thoery's argument.
What do we know?
Consumers recognize inflation begun, increase in spending. This is because consumers don't want to wait on buying purchases that will end up increasing in price. However, during long periods of inflation, consumers actually stop making routine purchases, even though consumers continue to expect prices to rise and despite the fact that salaries also rise during inflation periods.
What would most help to explain this weird stuff?
A) Okay...and? It still doesn't help explain consumers' odd behavior.
B) Just because there is an initial lag, doesn't help. Consumers are still stopping to spending all their cash during periods of inflation.
C) Wow, okay. I feel like this would make it even more confusing. We still need an explanation about this activity.
D) Okayyyy. This is just saying "if this happens, then this." How the heck does that explain their odd behavior?
E) Bingo. This helps to explain WHY consumers are halting on buying stuff during periods of inflation, despite them knowing the prices would rise and their salaries rising. Purchasing power decreases during period of inflation -> stop buying stuff cause that stuff be expensiveeee
Conclusion: The president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation. WHY? The president made this decision (rejecting the plan proposed by the parliament to reform the electoral process) knowing they would be met with opposition and widespread disapproval abroad.
Flaw: The conclusion has a new concept that the editorial never addressed; the best interests of the nation. Is there any support for this? Not really. All we know is that the president was met with opposition and widespread disapproval abroad. That's the gap that the author never addressed. How do we know that a decision that was met with opposition and widespread disapproval was in the interests of the nation? We don't.
A) Nope, what does the "quality of a political leader" have to do with the gap from premise to conclusion?
B) Hate this wording lol. This be correct though. The gap was concerning the president's decision being in "the best interests of the nation" and how they knew it would be met with opposition and disapproval. This answer choice is basically saying the editorial did not address what was required for a decision to be made in the best interests of the nation, knowing it would be met with hostility (courageous ig). Stupid stupid stupid.
C) Irrelevant. I didn't think this was important to the main argument.
D.) How would this weaken the argument? Nah, next.
E.) Wrong. Too strong.
In short, I hate this.
That is because in day-to-day conversations in English, we often use "some" to mean "several" or "a few." People, including myself, use some to literally always mean more than one. However, some must include at least one. On the LSAT, they're not necessarily saying that there is only one of something, but in the example, it must be true that at least one student can read. I think JY really wants to emphasize that "some" is a range that must include at least one but can include up to all. I also think LSAT wants to ensure you know the difference between some, most, and all as their ranges differ. Overall, LSAT lingo /= day-to-day normal English lol. Hope this helps clear it up!
No, not all lsat questions will have a conclusion. For example, in Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported questions, they usually consist of a set of facts with no conclusion. Your job will be to choose an answer choice that will follow logically from the premises. Basically, you're making a conclusion based on the set of facts given. Sounds intimidating, but with practice comes better performance!!
Assumptions are not stated in the stimulus -- as defined, they are unstated. Therefore, anything in the stimulus is taken as fact. As the reader, we take what is stated in the premises as facts. It is our job to take every sentence listed in the tiger argument as fact. So, really, assumptions can never really turn into facts because they are unstated. Assumptions are just what the author assumes to be true in order for the argument to follow logically; they don't say it explicitly because, again, they are assuming. Also, premises are not assumptions because they are stated. They are explicit, while assumptions are implicit. That is how I interpreted the videos so far. Hope this makes sense and correct me if I wrong on anything guys!
I think the main goal is to focus on accuracy before you start to incorporate timing. Consistently drilling and reviewing is key to this test. That is why I think it is so learnable. I am in the beginning of the curriculum but won't focus on timing until I learn all the question types, memorized the strategies, and am getting my untimed drills correctly.
For the future: A tip I read is to see how long it takes you to complete a normal PT section, without worrying about the time. See where you score and slowly start doing timed sections with that time. Again, focus on accuracy and review, review, review! Then, repeatedly start taking drilled sections by chipping away at the timer (increments of 2-5 minutes) until you reach 35 minutes. You should only start chipping away if you are maintaining accuracy!
Chain: Mild winter =c=> more natural forage =c=> less feeder visit
Chain: Mild winter =c=> less migration =c=> less attrition (aka more birds)
How do we connect "less feeder visits" to "less attrition" (more birds)?
C.) Correct answer. Diagrammed as: less feeder visits =c=> less eaten by predators. Less birds getting eaten by predators from the lack of feeder visits means that there is an increase in birds. Hence, why this would strengthen the reasoning of the argument.
A.) Nope. "Unusual?" How do we know this mild winter is deemed as "unusual?"
B.) Nope. I made the unwarranted assumption that they mated more since they did not migrate. How do we know that? We just don't know if the birds ended up mating more or less.
D.) No and no. The stimulus explicitly tells us that the birds are great and lived through the mild winter. In fact, they are thriving with their increased population. This doesn't apply to the situation.
E.) Hmm. Yeah, no. The stimulus already accounts for birds already using the feeders. Birds just aren't using them like they used to. I don't see how they can connect the feeders to the increase in bird population anyway.