Community Profile

PT113.S4.Q17

KCC56

Edited 16 hours ago

@jjjellopants I think it has to do with the flaw with the author's reasoning, which is drawing a casual explanation from a comparitive statistic. The author's premises don't say there are less fatalities because cars were driving slower from the speed limit; they don't mention how the speed of the cars at all. Rather, the author's argument is this:

Context: Last year, a new speed limit was introduced.

Premise: There are less fatalities this year than last year.

Conclusion: Therefore, the speed limit caused less fatalities.

The author's "support" for the conclusion is this statistic. That's pretty bad support, because it's a comparative with no evidence of the other side. What was the statistic last year? We have no idea, so that's a big loophole flaw in this argument. I believe if the premise said "less fatalities than average", rather than "last year", then this argument would be more valid.

It's hard to eliminate answers like B because it's so "common sense", and yea in reality obeying speed limits would matter for effective prevention of fatalities, but on the LSAT we have to stick to the author's argument and use what the author uses as support. The author's only support for this conclusion is this fact—there is fewer fatalities this year than last year.

I think for future flaw/vulnerable to criticism questions, try to be wary of new information in the AC, and whether the new information is actually finding the flaw in the author's premises. For example, the author here never mentions speed (or reduced speed) as the reason for their conclusion. Make sure to identify what the author is actually using as evidence to support their conclusion.

2

PrepTests ·

PT131.S3.Q19

KCC56

Edited 2 days ago

@xcutethings I got the answer wrong at first as well. We need to approach this question as a "Must Be True", which means the answer HAS to be supported by the stimulus.

The first two ACs, A and B, state mere facts which are unsupported by the stimulus. For A, we don't know if babies do understand the words they utter—it's not explicitly stated.

For the last 3 ACs, it's interesting because it presents a conditional. It says "IF ______ happens, THEN ______". This means, we take the first half of the sentence as a hypothetical "if this was true" situation. If the first half was true, then would the stimulus support the second half being true?

The stimulus tells us babies do NOT know dictionary definitions for some words. Importantly, it does not state whether babies understand the words they're uttering. But AC E puts up that hypothetical: what if "babies understand all the words they utter"? If they do, then that means they're understanding something without knowing the dictionary definition of it. Then, the second half of AC E would follow: "then understanding a word does not always involve knowing its dictionary definition."

Both AC A and E talk about babies understanding the words they utter; but the problem with A is that it straight up declares babies do not understand their words, which there's no evidence of. On the other hand, E stands behind a hypothetical conditional, and only asks if the second half MUST BE TRUE if the first half is triggered.

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q22

KCC56

Edited 4 days ago

@Rcotter22 Thanks for bringing me back! I completely forgot I commented this. Coming back 10 days later, I do actually see why C would be correct.

Indeed, "middle or late puppyhood" is a distinct set from "fully-grown". But now I see the problem; the trainer made a conclusion that you should only neuter your dog AFTER it's full-grown from a premise only about early puppyhood. The question is, what about the time between early puppyhood and full-growth? Does that time inbetween also have negative effects on bone development? There's a possibility that there won't be negative effects, and hence don't have to wait until full-growth. That's why C would be correct.

I guess I've learned a lot since then! 😅

2

PrepTests ·

PT113.S2.Q20

KCC56

Edited 4 days ago

I crossed out B twice in BR because I thought the spleen was a type of muscle tissue... never skipping anatomy again....

The spleen is an organ that filters and stores blood. It is not made of muscle, but made of red pulp and white pulp (whatever that is) T_T

1

PrepTests ·

PT102.S2.Q22

KCC56

4 days ago

I remember I saw this question when I just started studying for the LSAT, and it was so hard I genuinely thought it'd be over... now coming back a few weeks later, I can almost immediately spot that the stimulus was a valid contrapositive comparison. I knew I had to find a valid contrapositive statement in the ACs. Translating the "without" and "no one" felt almost impossible at first, but now I get it. Don't give up everyone!!

2

PrepTests ·

PT133.S1.Q14

KCC56

Edited 6 days ago

@Zosia<3 I choose B as well at first. I think part of why it's wrong is because of the phrase "all skeptics", which is far too strong. Waller says if superpowers were real, it would "generally be accepted by the public", but not necessarily satisfying EVERY single person and skeptic. In fact, he would probably agree (like Chin) that it can't satifsy all skeptics, because if Waller disagreed, he would be saying that there is not a single person in existence that would be unsatisfied/skeptical of superpowers.

On the other hand, D is correct because both of them are arguing about "the general public accepting superpowers". Waller says if superpowers are real, then those people with superpowers would be able to convince the public. Chin says NO, even if superpowers are real, it will not convince public opinion, because people are biased. Therefore, the two are disagreeing on whether the general public being convinced powers are real/not real is relevant to the actual existence of superpowers.

3

PrepTests ·

PT140.S3.Q18

KCC56

Edited 6 days ago

Try thinking of it using actual companies. Argument says "most companies who don't have videoconferencing equipment already". Who doesn't already have videoconferencing equipment? Maybe family businesses, restaurants, florists, small clinics, etc. Most likely, most of those companies who don't already have video equipment DON'T NEED IT, so clearly it's NOT worth it.

Now, the survey says, "Yes, but look at these companies who DID buy it, and they said it was worth it!". Who would be likely to purchase the equipment? Companies that need it. The survey asked companies who needed it whether it was worth buying it. That's unrepresentative of "most companies that don't have video equipment already".

Sillier example is this:

Magazine: Don't buy the Apple Vision Pro if you don't already have VR equipment, it's a waste of money.

Conclusion: No, that's false! This survey says people who bought the Apple Vision Pro says it's worth the cost!!

2

PrepTests ·

PT142.S4.Q18

KCC56

Edited 6 days ago

ITS SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS AFTER THE ANSWER IS SHOWN AHHHHHHHH

Study: If we give melatonin to old insomniacs they get better :)

Pharmacist: Ah, then humans must produce less melatonin as they get older!!!

Study: what

1

PrepTests ·

PT144.S2.Q24

KCC56

Edited Monday, Jul 13

Reading the comment section is a bit confusing, so here's my take on it, without conditional logic.

The stimulus is equating "authors who write in order to give pleasure" with "books who give people pleasure". They are NOT the same thing. Which means there needs to be an assumption that bridges the gap between these 2.

Conclusion:

The claim, [authors who write for pleasure --> truth], is FALSE.

Premises/Reasoning:

That claim is not true because otherwise this example would be true and that's ridiculous: [popular book --> people pleasure --> not true]

However, once again, a book's popularity and ableness to give pleasure is not the same as the author's intent to write for pleasure. The premises never talk about the author's intent.

For example, in real life, Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank was NOT written by Anne Frank "in order to give pleasure", yet it is one of the most popular books to date. But just because it became popular, and thereby gives people "pleasure", does that mean that some part of her diary is not true? Only if you assume that a book cannot give pleasure unless the author intended it to, which is AC D.

1

PrepTests ·

PT111.S1.Q23

KCC56

Edited Monday, Jul 13

HUGE random dangling variable that just pops up in the conclusion: we need many beliefs in order to survive. When did any of the premises talk about survival?? Who even asked?? The author's premises only talks about the statisticians's claim about the surest way to correct beliefs and how that works. There's no mention of survival.

The flaw is that the author assumes that, for some reason, the statistician's talk about correcting beliefs has to care about this random variable of "survival". That's why A is correct.

3

PrepTests ·

PT156.S3.P2.Q13

KCC56

Monday, Jul 13

I think the correct AC would've been easier to get if the question stem would've been more like "Which of the following would the author of passage B agree with but the author of passage A would disagree with", rather than the ambiguous "more likely to agree" with.

1

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q23

KCC56

Edited Friday, Jul 10

Let me break it down 🕺 The stimulus was really hard to understand for me because of the "only", but I finally got to this.

Appreciate advances in tech --> understand architecture of PCs --> CS

Basically, appreciating advances in technology REQUIRES you to understand PCs, and to understand PCs you MUST be in CS.

Conclusion (flawed) :

CS --> Appreciate advances in tech

It swaps sufficient and necessary without negating. What if I'm a CS major and I don't appreciate tech? What if I don't appreciate anything? What if I can't understand the architecture of PCs because I use a Macbook instead of Windows? You need to be a CS person to understand this stuff, but being a CS person doesn't gurantee I will understand this stuff.

1

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q12

KCC56

Edited Friday, Jul 10

The conclusion is that people who say Dooney County is flat are WRONG, because if DC was flat, there wouldn't be any terraces for erosion.

But what if there were terraces NOT for erosion (terraces just for aesthetic purposes, or just for fun)? Then DC could have random terraces built not for the purpose of preventing erosion and still be flat. The author's argument wouldn't hold.

However, if there ARE terraces built for erosion, then that proves that those people are indeed wrong, and DC does have erosion and is not flat.

1

PrepTests ·

PT118.S2.P3.Q19

KCC56

Edited Thursday, Jul 9

After staring at this question for a couple mins, I can finally pinpoint why I kept getting this wrong.

The question is asking what "most weakens the author's criticism....". Which means, we're trying to find evidence SUPPORTING what the author doesn't support: the evolutionary assumption of parastitic --> symbiosis evolution.

E would support it (tho imo a pretty weak support), because it states that the opposite evolution symbiosis --> parasitic would fail. If this type of evolution fails, then it gives slightly more support that the evolutionary assumption of parasitic --> symbiosis could be viable.

1

PrepTests ·

PT130.S1.Q17

KCC56

Edited Thursday, Jul 9

I GET IT NOW. I didn't even think the country's average could decline in 10 years.

Example for why B is correct:

10 years ago, the country's average living condition scores a 100/100. Area L scored a 95—even though it's lower, they're still satified.

10 years later, the country's average drops to a 55/100. L scores a 55—it matches the average, but it's WAY lower than 10 years ago. Therefore, they're understandably more dissatisfied.

1

PrepTests ·

PT118.S4.Q20

KCC56

Wednesday, Jul 8

65% choose the wrong answer, while 27% choose the right one XD

3

PrepTests ·

PT143.S4.Q15

KCC56

Edited Tuesday, Jul 7

As soon as I saw corporate income tax, I just imagined this lol

Low-wage workers: Yea, we don't want high income tax! We can barely support ourselves with our salary already!

Legislator: Oh, then you'll definitely support me lowering corporate tax :)

Low-wage workers: what

3

PrepTests ·

PT113.S4.Q11

KCC56

Edited Tuesday, Jul 7

Galina's conclusion is the squirrels must be going after something other than sugar. Her premises to support her conclusion is this: the concentration of sugar is so low that squirrels would have to drink a lot of sap to get any significant amount of sugar.

Because it's a Weaken question, the AC will weaken the support between P --> C.

D weakens her argument, because it shows an alternative scenario the squirrels could be doing. They don't need to drink a lot of sap to get to the sugar if the water is evaporated; thus, D weakens Galina's support (they would have to drink a lot) for her conclusion.

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q20

KCC56

Edited Friday, Jul 10

We need to POE this question. C and E are the most chosen incorrect answers, but the reason they can't be true is because of descriptive inaccuracy or extremity.

C is wrong because of one word—"endorsed". The Economic Merit Prize winners never endorsed or publicly supported Acme, the advertisement is just showing a correlation. We never get their opinion.

E is incorrect because of one word—"identical". E says the argument assumes that the winners and audience has "retirement plan needs that are identical". However, the stimulus says "retirement needs similar to theirs". The stim can't be flawed for something it never stated.

2

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q17

KCC56

Edited Tuesday, Jul 7

TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN C AND D:

The climatologist's hypothesis is:

1) Earth's orbit fluctuates

2) Earth passes through clouds of cosmic dust

3) cosmic dust dims Sun

4) ICE AGE!

I was stuck between C and D. Answer C talks about volcanoes and seems so irrelevant; but Answer D talks about "cosmic rock entering the atmosphere" (AKA meteorites) which is ALSO irrelevant. I think the word "cosmic" makes D seem like it'll be helpful, but cosmic dust and cosmic rock are completely different things (scientifically you can check it out on Google as well).

If I was to rephrase C and D, it'll be like this:

C: Earth's average temperature also drops when volcanoes spew large amounts of dust into the atmosphere.

D: Cosmic rock, or meteorites, periodically hit Earth and cause large amounts of dust to rise.

Ultimately, C supports the bridge between cosmic dust dimming the sun --> ice age, because it supports dust --> cold. On the other hand, D talks about another phenomenon, not necessarily related or supporting the ice age hypothesis. Once again, how does the fact that occasionally meteorites hit Earth and cause dust relate to the climatologist's hypothesis that cosmic dust caused the ice age 800,000 years ago?

2

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q22

KCC56

Edited Monday, Jul 6

The AC is so silly because the correct AC says "in middle or late puppyhood." Puppyhood literally means the stage where a dog is a puppy, the stage BEFORE it is fully grown. So this AC wouldn't even be a flaw because the stimulus says "should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown", which is AFTER puppyhood.

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S3.Q18

KCC56

Edited Monday, Jul 6

Short explanation for why B is incorrect:

B generalizes the airborne illnesses to ALL "People who fly today". The stimulus only talks about commercial airlines. Therefore, we cannot apply this to all people who fly, because B does not account for private flights, helicopters, military planes, Taylor Swift's jet, etc.

3

Lessons · Miscellaneous Question (Broadcasting)

KCC56

Edited Saturday, Jul 4

@Njbrunette I agree! I don't think it's necessary to find direct evidence from the passage for this question, since it's hypothetical. You only need the general message from the passage. Otherwise, it's more confusing trying to find evidence for a theoretical situation like this.

2

PrepTests ·

PT140.S4.P3.Q19

KCC56

Edited 3 days ago

AC D is like the meme where a pro can't beat a noob, because the noob has no idea what they're doing and the pro can't predict their moves XD

2

Admissions profile

Applications

Discussions

Importance of Legal Experience on Resume for Applications

Confirm action