Gertabarentos

Joined: Aug 2025
Subscription: Live

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided Goal score: 173

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

2027

Applications

Columbia

In process

Cornell

In process

CUNY

In process

Georgetown

In process

NYU

In process

UPenn

In process

Discussions

Lessons · Fast Track - Necessary Assumption

Gertabarentos

3 days ago

Like any other Fast Track lessons, thank you for this! Questions 1-6 were straightforward to me, but not 7. I try to answer them as though timed before Kevin goes through it, so the weakness in ACs in 7th made me think about and look at it more closely compared to the other questions.

PrepTests ·

PT118.S4.Q19

Gertabarentos

Friday, May 29

FLAW CATEGORY: GAMBLER'S FALLACY*

My wrong answer (AC) A

In flaw questions, the conclusion is not where the flaw lives — the reasoning is.
A is actually describing something that might be true - the conclusion IS bold and based on probability. But that's NOT a flaw in the reasoning: lots of valid arguments make prescriptive recommendations based on probability. The specific problem here is the misuse of averages, not the boldness of the conclusion.
One tutor in the discussion also made an interesting point: is it really a "bold prescription" if it is a "high probability" that this big event happens? I want to be protected if it is likely to happen!

Correct (AC) C Reasoning

The argument treats an average frequency as if it were a predictable schedule. Just because something happens on average every 100 million years doesn't mean it's "due" -- random events don't work on a timetable.
Like saying "I've flipped tails 5 times in a row, so heads is due next." The coin has no memory and it will still be a 50% chance.

Lesson for next time

On Flaw questions, always ask: "What is the bad move in the reasoning?" not "What is wrong with the conclusion?"
Pay attention to the use of averages

* What is Gambler's Fallacy? The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken belief that if a particular random event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa). It assumes that independent events, like coin flips or roulette spins, "even out" over time.

PrepTests ·

PT108.S2.Q18

Gertabarentos

Wednesday, May 27

FLAW CATEGORY: SCOPE SHIFT

Question Summary

Micki's statement is about one person's action and its consequences. Sid responds by talking about the consequences of everyone believing that statement — those are two different things. Sid shifts from "consequences of the action" to "consequences of universalizing the belief."

Wrong Reasoning (AC) A

(AC) A is saying that Sid uses the "grass would die" argument to disprove the "walking across the grass" itself.
Sid isn't trying to prove that walking on grass is harmful. He's attacking Micki's reasoning by universalizing it.

Correct Reasoning (AC) B

It captures the exact shift: Sid talked about the consequence of walking across the grass (grass damage) as though it were the consequence of everyone believing it's okay to walk.

General · AI coach

Gertabarentos

Wednesday, May 27

@AgnesAlojado I would absolutely love to explore!

Lessons · Fast Track - Flaw

Gertabarentos

Tuesday, May 26

I just want to say how much these fast track videos are significantly more effective to me than the full modules!

Full modules has a lot of abstract concepts that my brain cannot retain. In comparison, going through the "lessons" via questions directly makes immediate connection between the logic concept and practical use.

Thank you, Kevin!

General · AI coach

Gertabarentos

Tuesday, May 26

What is this?

Lessons · You Try - Alzheimer's and Microglia (S)

Gertabarentos

Wednesday, May 6

@beneley2k LMAO

Lessons · You Try - Sunscreen and Skin Cancer (W)

Gertabarentos

Wednesday, May 6

My own explanation:

Researchers announced recently that over the past 25 years the incidence of skin cancer caused by exposure to harmful rays from the sun has continued to grow in spite of the increasingly widespread use of sunscreens. This shows that using sunscreen is unlikely to reduce a person's risk of developing such skin cancer.

The research relies on time series data for incidence of skin cancer and use of sunscreens, and correlates both. We know that over the data period, sunscreen use has increased.

As this is a weaken question, a good thing to ask (alternative hypothesis) given those "clues": What changed in the population with increasing incidence of skin cancer over 25 years? (age!)

PT132.S4.Q5 Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

A) Most people who purchase a sunscreen product will not purchase the most expensive brand available.

Irrelevant. We don’t know the effectiveness of sunscreens across price ranges.

B) Skin cancer generally develops among the very old as a result of sunburns experienced when very young.

This meets our criteria of an alternative explanation because it tells about the changes in the population in question over the time period of the correlation, other than sunscreen use.

C) The development of sunscreens by pharmaceutical companies was based upon research conducted by dermatologists.

We don't know the population of sunscreens developed by pharmaceutical companies nor their effectiveness.

D) People who know that they are especially susceptible to skin cancer are generally disinclined to spend a large amount of time in the sun.

People protect themselves from the sun by hiding, which we don't know the population of. It doesn't tell us anything about the sunscreen's effectiveness. This does not affect the argument.

E) Those who use sunscreens most regularly are people who believe themselves to be most susceptible to skin cancer.

People protect themselves from the sun by making sure they use sunscreen, which we don't know the population of. It doesn't tell us anything about the sunscreen's effectiveness. This does not affect the argument.

Lessons · You Try - Air Pollution in Industrial England (S)

Gertabarentos

Monday, May 4

I got it correct but am i the only one that gets really anxious before submitting and when I get it right i’m like “Thank God”

#sotraumatized

Lessons · You Try - Antibiotic Resistance (S)

Gertabarentos

Monday, May 4

I almost answered D but I felt like I was being tricked so I re-read everything and ultimately chose B! Below is my explanation:

The discrepancy between the stimulus' support and conclusion is the lack of comparison to another kind of sewage sludge, which an ideal of would cancel out the main characteristic of the subject. In this case, that characteristic should be the sewage sludge's concentration of heavy metals. The next thing to make sure is that this second version of the subject has, as much as possible, similar all other characteristics of the first/main version. Now, this alternative version must show the complete opposite of our main version's test result.

B meets these two criteria. uses a group that is free of heavy metals, but also has similar all other characteristics, making it the best version to compare our main version to. The test result was a complete opposite of the result from our main version: that it is generally not resistant to heavy-metal poisoning or antibiotics.

How does this compare to D? D provides an alternative explanation to the cause of antibiotic resistance, by saying that a sewage sludge with high concentration of heavy metal (our subject's main characteristic), generally has significant concentration of antibiotics. That is: A significant concentration of antibiotics do create antibiotic resistance.

Lessons · All Before Most

Gertabarentos

Saturday, Nov 1, 2025

Example

All non-caffeinated teas are relaxing. Most teas help with sleep. Therefore, most relaxing teas help with sleep.

Lessons · Most Statements are Not Reversible

Gertabarentos

Saturday, Nov 1, 2025

Example:

Most senior-level staff in our office hold graduate-level degrees in Economics or Public Policy. Therefore, Samantha, who has a graduate degree in Economics, is likely to become a senior-level staff member.

Lessons · Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity

Gertabarentos

Saturday, Nov 1, 2025

Confusing Sufficiency for Necessity Example

It is true that infatuation can distract humans from their obligations. As such, LSAT takers under the spell of romantic infatuation are distracted from their studying. Over lunch, Sarah's friend group shared their frustrations over being distracted from studying for the LSAT. It must be that Sarah's friend group is under the spell of romantic infatuation.

aight imma diary my way to LSAT studying yall

Lessons · Skill Builder - Drawing Valid Conclusions 4

Gertabarentos

Thursday, Oct 23, 2025

I love seeing things in lawgic now!! I just gotta get faster :)

Study Groups · NYC/Manhattan Study Buddy

Gertabarentos

Saturday, Sep 6, 2025

Not a student but looking for a study bud in manhattan too!

Study Groups

•

Edited Monday, Sep 1, 2025

Gertabarentos

💪 Motivated

LF: NYC Study group (Manhattan)!

Hi! I just restarted my LSAT studying and law school options research. I've been preparing with a coworker, but we have a different timeline (she's taking October 2025, I'll be taking mid-2026).

I am wondering if there's already a formed group around the City, or someone is interested. I am in the Upper East Side area and work in Tribeca. I've been religiously studying before work, 6-8AM-ish, with more flexibility on the weekends.

I find it very nice to exchange parsing techniques with my colleague, and I'm a lover of community! if you're interested, please reach out: gertabarentos@gmail.com

Lessons · Checkpoint - How are we doing?

Gertabarentos

Sunday, Aug 31, 2025

I feel more confident; therefore, I am more motivated to continue going through these lessons! Thank you for making it easier for me, 7Sage!

Lessons · Skill Builder - For, since, because

Gertabarentos

Sunday, Aug 31, 2025

@KaviPious-Milnor Same thought!

Lessons · Not all arguments are equally strong

Gertabarentos

Monday, Aug 25, 2025

Seek if there is a linking assumption between the premise and the support.

The tigers argument is a medium strength argument because there is no link between the 'mammals' and 'tigers.' While tigers are truly mammals in our world, this argument does not explicitly say it; therefore, it is ONLY MORE LIKELY to be true and not 100% true.

The Disney argument is strong because there are clear links between the options that Disney Vacation Club members have to do to get a Genie+fast pass and what Walt didn't do, cancelling out that other option as to why he got the Genie+ fast pass anyway. It is guaranteed to be true!

The Trash Bin argument is the weakest because there is a missing link between Mr. Fat Cat's behavior of knocking the bin and accessing fish/food within.