Subscription pricing
Anyone in the Mississauga/Toronto area looking for a study parter or interested in starting a study group?
PT Questions
JaceGuinto95
- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Live
JaceGuinto95
Sunday, Aug 31 2025
who knew hypothesis was a noun lol
JaceGuinto95
Thursday, Aug 28 2025
tbh, I feel like concession points are low key manipulative lmao
JaceGuinto95
Wednesday, Aug 27 2025
This was annoying because logically, E makes sense. However, I was under the impression that we have to believe the facts of whatever the passage states, given that whatever is written is considered to be "true in that world."
JaceGuinto95
Tuesday, Aug 26 2025
I think the issue with #5 is that most of us who got this wrong got caught up in, "there has been a surge in obesity rates." because it described the result of the fast food boom. I'm not gunna lie, I got excited and thought that was it, but I can see why it's not. The entire argument spoke about this surge and then all of a sudden introduced physical activity and dietary habits. It strung us along for some random conclusion, which was annoying, but nevertheless all of that stringing along was to explain why the surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits.
JaceGuinto95
Thursday, Aug 21 2025
@JimMcEnulty I hope the pasta was good either way brother. Mess or not, I'm sure it was worth it. Thanks for the motivation!!
JaceGuinto95
Sunday, Aug 17 2025
@SSkuster oh trust me, I didn't even get through half before the time ran out. It was truly so discouraging but we cannot let this determine how successful we will be on the LSAT or as a lawyer in general! We got this!
JaceGuinto95
Thursday, Aug 14 2025
@CuylerBrehaut a -> b would mean a supports b. At least, in this context, that is what I meant. In the original example, the premise (a) increased the likelihood of the conclusion (b). However, when J.Y. altered the example, the claim that tigers were aggressive did not adequately support the claim that not every mammal is suitable to be kept as a pet. So, in this circumstance b did not support a (b -> a). A and b are not the same at all. A (the premise) is the claim in place to support B (the conclusion).
JaceGuinto95
Thursday, Aug 14 2025
@Jineen Altayeh I think in a mathematical sense, you are correct; a->b, b->a. However, on the LSAT, premise (a) can only support the conclusion (b); a->b, and not the other way around because the conclusion's role (b) is only to receive the support from the premise. We cannot say, "tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people because not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." The premise in this example does not support the conclusion.
JaceGuinto95
Thursday, Aug 14 2025
@jayprev97 GoogleDocs for the win. I can access it anywhere, anytime, and on any device
this ain't it chat