EmilieRupprecht

Joined: Dec 2025
Subscription: Core

Admissions profile

LSAT

161

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

2026

Discussions

PrepTests ·

PT127.S3.Q21

EmilieRupprecht

Friday, Jul 10

i feel like it is important to note the "WHY" from george's question

this means that Boris has to explain WHY it is getting big now- which he does not (he says what is happening)

LSAT · Highlighting on 7Sage now matches LawHub

EmilieRupprecht

Friday, Jul 10

Has LSAC released what their point is by making it harder to highlight??

LSAT

•

Friday, Jul 10

EmilieRupprecht

😖 Frustrated

highlighting feature

i have to complain just once and then i will move on and submit to the change but I CANNOT STAND THE NEW HIGHLIGHTING FEATURE

i know i know it is LSAC. but like bruh. i see no reason to change it but for the reason to make it take longer to highlight. which actually does not make ANY logical sense to me.

SO much of law school involves highlighting- also to change orange to green is criminal

it's not that big of a deal but enough to bother me less than a month out from test day.

my biggest peeve with it is that it doesn't just stay the color you choose- it resets every question (at least from my brief usage with the new feature)

WHATEVER.

gotta accept it and overcome the change

PrepTests ·

PT127.S2.Q21

EmilieRupprecht

Edited Thursday, Jul 9

tania is like

" guys, a good art critic is not like other girls, they're different and don't conform to what is usually considered 'fair'.

you can only be unbiased if you are not interested in it but guess what guys? art is a passion and passion obvi means you have interest in it. And if you are not dumb then you would know i already prefaced that having interest in something (having passion) means you cannot be unbiased. It's simple really: a good art critic cannot separate their emotion from their criticism.

SO NO.

good art criticism cannot be unbiased (too much passion involved) and thats why art is so different when it comes to what is fair criticism because we just know there is too much passion for it to ever be unbiased (good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion".

PrepTests ·

PT128.S1.P4.Q28

EmilieRupprecht

Wednesday, Jul 8

it is important (and for Q24) to recognize that "UNDETECTABLE" means they do not know what can or does effect the different outcomes- implying they cannot have control over all the variables when they try to reproduce/replicate

if they cannot even tell what is changing each time (undetectable) then they cannot control each experiment THEREFORE leading us to believe (validly) that it is impossible to control (bring about the same) the beginning conditions every time

PrepTests ·

PT128.S1.P4.Q25

EmilieRupprecht

Wednesday, Jul 8

the way i see it is there are two parts:

"persuaded of the possibility that numerous unstable systems exist"

AND

"confident that the existence of numerous unstable systems would call into question one of the foundations of science"

for 1, we find our reference text in the beginning of the last paragraph.

"presumably" means she agrees AKA "persuaded"
extra support: "likelihood... is small"

for 2, we find it in the rest of the last paragraph

"If other such systems do exist" she is saying that IF THEY EXIST (in a world where we find it is true they are real) THEN "scientists would be forced to question one of the basic principles that guide their work." (they WOULD BE FORCED TO QUESTION)

it is all within a theoretical circumstance (which we see with the "if") that we are able to know FOR SURE she would agree with the questioning

i would argue to say some of this question makes you check in with your grammar.

"may" is in reference to the failed attempts and if they occur NOT IN REFERENCE to if she is confident that if they did exist they would call into question

PrepTests ·

PT128.S1.P4.Q25

EmilieRupprecht

Wednesday, Jul 8

@boris.b

the way i see it is there are two parts:

"persuaded of the possibility that numerous unstable systems exist"

AND

"confident that the existence of numerous unstable systems would call into question one of the foundations of science"

for 1, we find our reference text in the beginning of the last paragraph.

"presumably" means she agrees AKA "persuaded"
extra support: "likelihood... is small"

for 2, we find it in the rest of the last paragraph

"If other such systems do exist" she is saying that IF THEY EXIST (in a world where we find it is true they are real) THEN "scientists would be forced to question one of the basic principles that guide their work." (they WOULD BE FORCED TO QUESTION)

it is all within a theoretical circumstance (which we see with the "if") that we are able to know FOR SURE she would agree with the questioning

i would argue to say some of this question makes you check in with your grammar.

"may" is in reference to the failed attempts and if they occur NOT IN REFERENCE to if she is confident that if they did exist they would call into question

PrepTests ·

PT111.S1.Q21

EmilieRupprecht

Monday, Jul 6

caveman says: the amount of sleep matter but weird DR not say sleep more

LSAT says: why DR not say more sleep?

we say: bc if DR did, stress out more and even less sleep

B gives us a reason to why the DR may not have recommended it, sure. BUT it does not RESOLVE the weirdness of not just advising more sleep when we are TOLD that the amount of sleep matters

we HAVE to stay focused on the two parts they highlight:

the amount of sleep matters
but DR does not recommend any change in amount

B tempts us to bite on explaining why but it does not resolve the fact that the AMOUNT matters- B almost negates the fact that the amount of sleep matters. B could be true but it does not resolve the actual fact the AMOUNT matters

PrepTests ·

PT108.S1.P2.Q13

EmilieRupprecht

Thursday, May 21

B seemed more aligned with the "might" and "can" attitude in this passage to me. I feel like "might" and "can" shows uncertainty and I tied that to "somewhat skeptical". She's like hey, I do feel positive about this but overall, I am feeling somewhat skeptical it will happen.

I assumed that "somewhat skeptical" also can mean supportive but you know, somewhat skeptical

I don't know how to reconcile this except for understanding that there are MORE positive feelings within the passage as a whole and being "skeptical" is not the same as "uncertainty" ( 'might' and 'can' ).

Along with maybe the fact that you can be strongly supportive and still be unsure because 'strongly' does not imply 'fully"- skepticism/uncertainty can exist within that term of STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE but because there is more overwhelming positive feelings, we go with the strongly supportive option.

PrepTests ·

PT125.S1.P3.Q18

EmilieRupprecht

Edited Wednesday, Apr 22

you truly have to gather that she made one dance and then para 4 is only telling us how she fit all of those changes into one dance

para 4: "WITHIN her interpretation"

(not interpretationS)

stupid stupid one word tell

PrepTests ·

PT132.S1.P1.Q4

EmilieRupprecht

Friday, Apr 17

i agree with a lot of the comments but i think we are all subconsciously also making an assumption somewhere else:

"USUALLY dig trenches along visible fault lines"

we have been taught to take this as something that doesn't mean ALL. yes, we know this usually happens but we aren't going to become all exclusive over this.

THENNNN

we get to B where B says

"unlikely to be helpful... that have no identifiable (no visible) fault lines"

and our knee jerk reaction is like you can't say that- it could be just as possible without the visibility but we just usually do that.

okay yes, now follow me.

i fear we may need to make an assumption (ik ik it's stupid bc sometimes you can make assumptions and other times you will be flogged for it by the LSAT writers) BUT we need to look at why these seismologists USUALLY dig with visible fault lines:

If I dare say it is because it is MORE HELPFUL to have these visible lines and B highlights that.

B is like hey yeah it is probs unlikely to be helpful to use this method with non visible lines... maybe because the time to find a fault line without it being visible is not worth the time or cost or whatever reason you want to make up.

HELPFUL here in B might need a makeover in perception of what it means- maybe "helpful" means the cost and return is worth it and without visible lines it just isn't worth it and THEREFORE unlikely to be helpful without those visible lines

its stupid i know but the LSAT wants you to think like this for whatever reason. were just the players of the game so mind as well learn how to play the game if you want that score

PrepTests ·

PT101.S4.P1.Q8

EmilieRupprecht

Edited Thursday, Feb 26

after reading almost all these comments, I still HATE this question. like be so fr but the LSAT doesnt care if i hate it or not SOOOO here is how i have reconciled this stupid dumb horrible annoying question :)

we really need to focus on the "FALSE" part of the sentence. once we work through the convoluted grammer, we see that the author is like bro this debate is FALSE (debate being that books should be not very intellectual and just easy). we then now can predict we will be looking for something that exemplifies this opinion of falsity. we want an AC to say something like yeah, a book should actually be intellectual and hard. which does lead us to AC C

i think it is hard to even grasp this until you get the grammar and the dumb referentials BUT then to reframe it in the way that we are looking to find something that illustrates that "opposition set up" as FALSE. what is that opposition set up? that books are dull and lowbrow. and that is FALSE so we need the opposite to be true --> books should be demanding and hard for the readers

PrepTests ·

PT123.S2.Q17

EmilieRupprecht

Edited Tuesday, Dec 23, 2025

i hate this question. i find it a valid assumption to assume that computer experts are speaking on confidential data as it relates to hospitals. they are experts in confidential data access so what do you mean it isn't sufficient???? BUT this is not what AC B is saying. i view conferences as a place that many people with different expertises come to talk. NOW THIS IS HOW I RECONCILED this dumb question because i do believe that the LSAT will always win so mind as well learn how to think like they want for the sake of that 170+ score yk?

think of all the experts at this management conference, all at a round table. they are sharing their thoughts of what is the "most significant threat". each expertise says what they believe is the the biggest threat. we find in the stim that computer experts say it is "unauthorized access to confidential data" as the biggest threat. our hospital executive is like omg yeah im gonna go with what the computer experts say.

WRONG

he cannot do that.

he cannot take only the group of computer experts' opinions about the biggest threat and make that claim for his hospital. He has to hear out everyone to be able to make a sound decision/argument (it has to be more of a mix for such a general claim)

it is more like a part to whole flaw.

he is "relying on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support the general claim". AKA not listening to all the other experts. so that expertise from the computer experts cannot account for the entire management of a hospital, it is only one section (not broad enough to make such a general claim)

hopefully that helps because this question sucks lol.

focus on the fact that computer experts are making a claim about hospital management- they are only one piece of how the management works. aka not able to make that broad of a claim for something out of their scope (not experts in management)