- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
find the AC that conflicts with the argument.
Argument's stance: being skeptical about Hanlon -> it's unjustified bias!
(A) extraordinary(Hanlon's claim) -> should be critical(= should not be uncritical)
-> but the author is more like 'you're being too skeptical, and it exhibits an unjustified bias'
Therefore, this conflicts with the author!
(B) we're not talking about intermediary source
(C) is Hanlon's claim (1) has trusted a source in the past and (2) has a good reputation? -> we have no idea.
(D) people who think they observe supernatural phenomena = Hanlon. The author is not arguing something about Hanlon.
(E) never know if a report here is confirmed by an independent source.
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.
I simply failed to understand what (D) was saying...
=> B concludes 'claim' is false because there was a fault in an 'argument'
/obscene , /malicious talk
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
(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.
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.
@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.
@MichaelWright Thank you so much for the great video! I'll try out to focus on execution part like you mentioned. Motivated again🔥
@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!
JoyelleBaek
Big gap between actual score vs. BR score. Need an advice for study method!
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😭
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.
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.
merely A is true vs. A is false is not logically inconsistent, it's just opposing each other
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
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]
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.
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
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
I thought (C) makes sense cuz
there's no single legit sounding answer choice between (A),(B),(D),(E) lol
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.
I've been struggling to understand this question for A WHILE, and now I finally got it
Dominant view: P formed from 'fossilized remains' of plants and animals (= already dead)
Challenge: not from living material(= plants and animals), but from carbon deposits
Author: 'challenger's theory is refuted!', because there is a biomarkers(=molecules indicating the PAST OR PRESENT existence of a living organism) => which can be understood that P rather formed from living materials(= fossilized remains of plants and animals)
What we have to do: WEAKEN the author's view) so we have to find something to show that P is not formed from the fossilized remains of plants and animals.
(D) certain strains of bacteria thrive deep inside the earth's crust
= 'currently alive' bacterias can also make biomarkers! (because biomarkers indicate both past or present existence of a living organism).
This shows the biomarkers can be formed from 'currently alive' bacterias, not from 'fossilized remains of plants and animals'.
What confused me the most was weather the bacteria can be included in 'living materials' or not. But regardless of this, there's also a possibility of biomarkers being made from 'currently alive' bacterias, not 'already dead, fossilized remains of plants and animals'. This possibility successfully weaken the author's view.