- Joined
- Oct 2025
- Subscription
- Coach
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I'm in tester mode, and I can't find the PT Number. Section Number. Question Number on the question, unless I go back to the drill results page.
Is this just a bug?
It looks like you should improve accuracy first. Once you build that accuracy, then you should get into working on time.
@Nishitha If you buy a CAS then you can request the transcript form the school needs to send in with your transcript. It depends on where you went to school, if it needs translation, etc. Earlier the better. CAS lasts for 5 years
If you plan on applying this cycle, I highly recommend you get your transcript translated and sent to LSAC asap. They need to send it off to a third party to have it evaluated and that takes time. Unless your school participates in an online service, they'll have to mail it to LSAC as well. I am still waiting on mine to process, despite it being roughly 1.5 months
You submit your transcript to LSAC and they re-evaluate your GPA for you. They score it on 4 categories: Superior (A), Above Average (B), Average (C), and Below Average (D/F).
At the end of the day, because your GPA won't be an American/Canadian GPA, the GPA has less weight. Rather, your LSAT Score will be weighed more.
Conditional Map as best I could:
I -m> /R (Broker Advice)
I -m> /R (Hutches)
“Only a few always do research before investing” means SOME R and Most do NOT R.
I <s> R (Own Reseach)
I <s> R (Hutches or Broker Advice )
I -m> Profit
Valid Inferences
A m> B
A m> C
==
B <S>C
So in our case we can infer that
I -m> /R (Broker Advice)
I -m> /R (Hutches)
I -m> Profit
==
/R <S> Profit
I use the Voisen Orange earplugs on Amazon. I use them everytime I study, take PT, etc. Good to get used to using them even before test day!
Isn't B correct because in the stimulus we are told that
Progress -> /Reasonable People.
B is the contrapositive of that to say:
Reasonable People -> /Progress.
Is that why B is our must be true answer?
Two takeaways on this question:
1) I thought that the first sentence was conditional (with depends), but was questioning the extent to the conditional. I mapped the (iffy) conditional anyways, but I did realise that the second sentence was the main conditional reasoning.
2) Even if the structure of A and /B or A <S> /B matches, you still need to make sure that the A and B matches with what you have. Both D and E are attractive because the wording of both ACs match our prephrased structure of a MBF question.
What makes D incorrect though is that D is saying "Succeed <S> /Efforts necessary"
But, the sufficient condition in our stimulus is actually "follow leader" not "Succeed". That's what makes D fall short.
In comparison, E is the best AC that conforms to MBF. We are told Leader <S> /Efforts Necessary (unsure). This matches the A <S> /B relationship we were looking for.
There's not a lot of substance in the stimulus besides the facts (premises) that a human liver cell can divide 60 times then stop. Also, if a human liver cell divides 30 times and then is put to be frozen and then thawed, it divides another 30 times but NO MORE.
Well, if we know that a liver cell did divide more than 60 times, then we know that it CANNOT be a human liver cell that was frozen and then thawed.
That's why B is correct. Given our premises, B cannot follow.
@Bobby68 This is so helpful! Kudos to you for providing such a detailed explanation!!
I think E is appealing if you think that Imagination is about what E says "think about what they see." Remember the stimulus in the first sentence tells us that this exercise of imaginations is. "think about what they HEAR". So, E is appealing if you didn't catch that first sentence or misinterpret it.
D is another way to preclude an alternative hypothesis. D is necessary because if it were true that this alternative hypothesis was possible, then it is possible then that the conclusion doesn't follow and the alternative hypothesis is correct. So, precluding the alternative hypothesis is absolutely NECESSARY in the argument (in the same way a Strengthen question would preclude an alternative hypothesis) because the negation of D would completely destroy the argument.
@superchillasian Just wanted to add on to your reasoning for C.
In the stimulus it says that "It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior".
I'm assuming this is what you meant by "there is a difference in the blameworthiness". Indeed what C says about Peter got hit by taxi while running a red light goes against this premise in the stimulus that taxi caused damage.
So, we can say that C is MBF because it goes against what the stimulus and premise tells us about Peter
I approached this question like P -> C gap and was very skeptical of C but I chose it anyway.
I think that thinking of PSA questions not just SA but like strengtheners would help in choosing C more confidently. Now that I reframed this PSA question like a strengthen question, I see how C would get us to the conclusion 70-90% of the way compared to the other answers.
Protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires.
Legitimate reason for attempting to prevent forest fire - > protection of forests and ecosystems
Contrapositive:
/protection of forests - > /legitimate reason for attempting to prevent forest fire
/protect forests means "allow forest fires" because it's implied that if we don't protect forests then we allow the natural phenomenon of forest fires to occur.
/legitimate reason for attempting to prevent forest fire means there shouldn't be reasons to prevent forest fire.
So if we translated back into the contrapositive:
allow forest fires - > there shouldn't be reasons to prevent forest fire.
Well does this now guarantee the conclusion?
Yes it does. If this is true, the P -> C gap is filled in and we can go to the conclusion.
A is correct because of the "either/or" structure.
Either all genetic mutations are random or none are random means:
/(none are random) -> all genetic mutations are random
negation of none is SOME. So, putting that back in:
SOME are random -> all genetic mutations are random.
Does this match the P -> C gap we need to fill in? Yes it does. The premie is about certain kinds of bacteria experiencing genetic mutations, which is at least one genetic mutation, thereby fitting our SOME statement.
So, A fits our gap we need as a P -> C rule.
@AndrewPerry I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions. In the stimulus we're just told that there's a study. The argument is looking at the study and its participants' blood cells of those who drank Tea (/Coffee) and Coffee (/Tea). For T group's cells took half of the time it took C group's cells to respond to germs. Argument concludes that T boosted immune system defences.
Must it be true that "all of the participants in the study drank either tea or coffee, and none drank both"?
No. The study could be looking at a part of the participants in the study. The study could also be looking at the whole thing. Either way, we don't know based on the stimulus whether ALL of the participants could be separated into the two groups and there were no overlaps. Further, even if we consider A as the assumption in the argument here, it wouldn't impact the conclusion. The conclusion is about a hypothesis to a phenomenon presented. A is bringing up this methodological thing. Well, the argument could very well skip the methodological part or include it, either way having it or not having it makes no impact to the argument.
If that were true, it's possible that the control group could have had an even faster immune system response than tea, thus implying that drinking tea actually slows the participants immune systems.
In response to your comment, you're making an assumption that there even was a control group. What if there wasn't? Do we even know if there was one based on what we are directly told in the stimulus? Again, the author is just comparing the Tea group's and Coffee group's cell response time.
Also, let's be charitable and think it's A. If we negate it, "SOME participants in the study drank neither tea nor coffee and some drank both". Okay let's take this to be true. Does the negated version of A DESTROY the conclusion that Tea boosted participants' immune system defences?
No absolutely not. In fact, I don't see how this negated AC makes any impact on the conclusion. If it's true that some participants (at least one participant) drank neither tea nor coffee out of the let's say 100 participants, it could still be the case that the others (100 minus 1 or 2 participants who didn't drink tea or coffee) in the study did. And if that was the case, then the conclusion would still follow. So, the negation of A doesn't make any impact on the conclusion. So, that's why A is just an irrelevant AC.
Please do respond, I'd love to hear your thoughts and happy to help you further.
Recurring pattern: numbers =/= percentages.
Just because percentage went down, doesn't mean the number also went down.
Another recurring pattern: over-inclusive & under-inclusive sets.
Correct AC banks on possibility that first study had over-inclusive set than second study.
P <S> M
P <S> C
M -> /CIL
C -> CIL
------
C -> /M
/M -> I
What must be true?
C -> /M -> I
A: CIL -> C (I) unsupported
B: /C -> M unsupported because we know C -> /M but this is sufficiency necessity confusion of what we know
C: C -> CIL unsupported we don't know that
D: I -> C unsupported, again this is sufficiency necessity confusion of what we inferred.
E: C -> I supported, this is what we inferred from the statements.
(please correct me if mistaken)
Recall that negating an "all" statement is "not all" or "some are not:".
Negating a "some" statement is "none".
In A, when we take the contrapositive, we are saying that "some meteor would not be followed by extinctions" for the sufficient condition. That triggers the rule to get /causal link.
In B, when we take the contrapositive, we are saying that "No extinction follow meteor impacts". The problem is that we know cases where extinctions do follow meteor impacts. So, the rule in B isn't triggered by the premises.
That's the difference between A and B. Both claim to land in the correct "no causal link" necessary condition. It's the question of whether the rule is triggered in the sufficient condition, given our premises.
The way I broke down A "The amphibian species whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution are not known to be among those species whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather" is as follows:
The amphibian species ... (whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution) are not known to be among those species (whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather).
1st Parentheses (whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution)) is about the "certain species" stimulus discuses.
2nd Parentheses (whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather) is about the group that is not part of the "most amphibian species' populations vary greatly from year to year because of natural variations in the weather". So, the group of the 2nd Parentheses is part of the "Not Most" group or the "0-50" group, when taking the "most" group to be "51-100".
So putting it all in but condensing it:
The amphibian species of certain species are not known to be among those species in the not most group.
In other words, the certain species ARE part of the most group (because of the double negatives that cancel out).
And exactly that's the assumption the argument makes. The argument assumes that the "certain species" is part of the "most amphibian species populations" group.
A is a bit tricky to parse through.
Exist -> continue to exist | contrapositive: /continue to exist - > /Exist
The "even if" part is a concession. Although it's a point made, it's not really relevant when we are looking for our assumption P ->C gap.
A does work as a P -> C gap because if something doesn't continue to exist, then it disappears. And if the premise in the stimulus is about something that disappears and the conclusion is about not existing, then A is the gap filler.