User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Joined
Jan 2026
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
162
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT110.S4.P1.Q6
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
4 days ago

the 'hunters' confused me....

1
PrepTests ·
PT135.S3.P2.Q10
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, Jul 13

This questions was difficult for me simply because the correct answer choice wasn't addressing some main topics, making it very hard to find the reference in the passage.

1
PrepTests ·
PT118.S4.Q24
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, Jul 3

I simply failed to understand what (D) was saying...

=> B concludes 'claim' is false because there was a fault in an 'argument'

1
PrepTests ·
PT118.S4.Q21
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, Jul 3

  1. /obscene , /malicious talk

  2. situations potentially offensive, disturbing, or controversial -> has to be done in a civil manner

(A) obscene or malicious? -> X

potentially offensive, disturbing, controversial situations? -> X

(B) 'prosecutors elicit testimony'

obscene or malicious? ->X

potentially o, d, c situations? -> X

(C) 'should be restrictions' -> X

(D) 'ask potentially embarrassing questions' -> if done in a civil manner, will be fine.

(E) divisive moral issue => controversial idea

name-calling -> can be far from being done in a civil manner

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q18
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, Jun 26

(E) is wrong bc it's not guaranteed WL method always make children learn letters rep. sounds, also we can't assert WL method directly teach children how to rep. sounds. Maybe WL method teach children 'how to read' and they naturally get to know how letters rep. sounds, since it's essential for reading.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S1.P4.Q27
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Edited Tuesday, Jun 23

Is there any difference between 'providing an argument' vs. 'argue' ?

Do I have to differenciate these two?

Also, how can't it be true that Passage A provides an argument? The last sentence of Passage A is not an argument.. . ? so confused.

2
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q18
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Tuesday, Jun 23

@16dnholli

The problem of this study is that they only studied a group of people aged 65-81. They're trying to make a conclusion that pineal gland produces less melatonin 'as it ages' , but we can't know this only with 65-81 years old people.

2
LSAT · Big gap between actual score vs. BR score. Need an advice for study method!
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, Jun 22

@MichaelWright Thank you so much for the great video! I'll try out to focus on execution part like you mentioned. Motivated again🔥

2
LSAT · Big gap between actual score vs. BR score. Need an advice for study method!
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Sunday, Jun 21

@SerinJ

Hello! Thank you for the great advice.

I realized that the main reason why I significantly get more questions right in BR is that I always debate between 2 answer choices. Since I know my choice in actual test was wrong in BR, I directly pick the one that I was debating with, and that's usually the answer.

I'll try to point out why I was debating so hard and focus more on this point!!

Also, I've never tried to try a timed PT with a few extra minutes, and it sounds like a good way to check if the time is actually a problem. I think yes since I know I sort of panic out every time I do the timed PTs haha😂 I'll def try it out!

Thank you for the advice again!

3

Hi!

I want to have some advice on my study method.

My PT score(timed) is between 155-160 and my BR score is usually 173-177.

I've been studying from this February, and I took June LSAT, still waiting for my score.

Regardless of the June score, I'm aiming to take it again in October and I really want to see my BR score in the real test.

The problem is, I don't feel I'm improving that much and not sure what should I do from now on. What helped you the most to minimize the score gap between your actual score and BR score? Will doing more timed practice help?

I was doing mostly timed section and review+wa journal after. Should I switch to untimed mode?

I'm def doing WA journal and I feel like I do understand everything, until I take a timed PT😭

4
PrepTests ·
PT142.S3.P2.Q11
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Tuesday, May 26

I was stuck between (B) and (E), and just realized I totally ignored the most important part of the question - 'the author mention as a factor'. Both AC's are not 'mentioned' in the passage.

(D) is supported in the passage - since the jurors want to arrive at a firm view(=eager to solidify their position regarding the case), they can therefore be expected to use the early positive framing.

1
PrepTests ·
PT140.S3.Q21
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Tuesday, May 26

I think POE makes sense here, but I don't think I clearly understood why (A) doesn't weaken the argument.

Yes, (A) affects 'both' groups, but I wonder if 'inaccuracy of the test methodology' can be a factor weakening an argument.

3
PrepTests ·
PT150.S2.Q23
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Tuesday, May 19

merely A is true vs. A is false is not logically inconsistent, it's just opposing each other

1
PrepTests ·
PT122.S2.Q17
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, May 15

I was so confused while solving this question but wow Kevin’s explanation is perfect perfect

It’s all based on this basic structure;

A <-s-> B

A -> C (answer choice)

B <-s-> C

3
PrepTests ·
PT122.S2.Q12
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, May 15

I thought it's a part of a context...

but actually all the premises are supporting each other -> leading to the conclusion

[it is primarily by raising interest rates,~] -> [BUT it takes two years] => [THEREFORE they raise interest before,~] -> [BUT unless inflation is readily apparent,~] => [conclusion]

1
PrepTests ·
PT122.S2.Q5
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, May 15

the source = the criticizer

source attack -> (A)

1
PrepTests ·
PT122.S4.Q24
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, May 15

some could be =/= at least one must be

I missed this!!

2
PrepTests ·
PT105.S1.Q20
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Edited Tuesday, May 12

god I doubted myself choosing (A) cuz it looked so obvious...then I got a wrong one in BR lol

I went with (E). It's wrong since a lack of connection doesn't necessarily indicate lack of influence on one another. We don't know.

2
PrepTests ·
PT149.S4.Q11
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, May 11

Conclusion: development of the trail should proceed

Premise: citizen's objection is groundless.(because most trail users will be considerate enough)

So there's no direct support for the 'conclusion' that we should proceed the development of the trail

=> bases its conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument is weak

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S4.Q8
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, May 11

Oh yes a model of a female guppy cannot give any feedbacks....... . . .

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S3.Q12
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, May 11

Still confused of (A)... my thought process was;

'unless their illiteracy is specifically mentioned' -> and I don't see anyone's illiteracy is specifically mentioned in stim. -> and we can presume that D's companion cannot read -> so we can reject the claim that characters are presumed to know how to read unless their illiteracy is specifically mentioned.

#help

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S1.Q23
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Monday, May 11

I thought (C) makes sense cuz

  1. there's no single legit sounding answer choice between (A),(B),(D),(E) lol

  2. if the 'specific' outrageous acts attributed to C are 'very similar' to acts attributed other cruel tyrants, => wouldn't it be possible that those acts were actually attributed to others, not C? Maybe some enemies of C decided to borrow some stories from them and decided to write it as if it's done by C.

1
PrepTests ·
PT113.S1.P4.Q25
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Friday, May 8

I wonder if I could eliminate (A) with the word 'conflict'. The explanation only mentions 'collective', but I don't think we were only talking about the case of conflict.

1
PrepTests ·
PT113.S1.P4.Q22
User Avatar
JoyelleBaek
Edited Friday, May 8

situation: high return(great mineral wealth) + low risk(moderate but easily tolerable harm)

this is the only info we have with the situation

(A) previously accepted views: take risk only if the value of the outcome is sufficiently high to compensate the risk => correct

(B) comparing the way they weigh the risk (seizing country vs. country being seized) => not mentioned

(C) no. seems benefit > risk

(D) we don't have any info other than objective calculation(benefit-mineral > risk-moderate)

(E) I got trapped by this just because it was talking about nations

passage: [nations also often take 'huge gambles' to retrieve..~]

are they taking a 'huge gamble'? no. benefit is considerable higher than the risk.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?