- Joined
- May 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
For A, we aren't told if "amateur scientists have also provided many significant contributions" intersects with "not win a Nobel prize". It's possible there are only 3 amateur scientists who made signficiant contributions, and all 3 also won a Nobel prize. Therefore A could possibly be false.
I got this wrong because I didn't realize that the author bases a conclusion that's about "all animals extinctions" only on a premise about "fish extinctions". AC A makes sense because it's saying that maybe fish aren't representative of all animals. Read the stimulus carefully!
I was between B and D, but then I glanced at the conclusion—it only talks about autistic children, not the ones falsely diagnosed. Then a little evil voice shouted in my head "who cares about those we misdiagonsed!! we only care about the REAL autistic kids!!" XD
I think visualizing it could help.
Notable ethical action: running a canned food drive, donating clothes, organizing a fundraiser
High ethical standard: not dumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean, not exploiting child employees for profit, not commiting discrimination in hiring practicies
A business committing a "notable" ethical action doesn't necessitate they are a business with "high" ethical standards. I guess it's like if evil companies like Nestle, Exxon, Amazon, Purdue Pharma, every healthcare insurance company etc. run a fundraiser to support the homeless, but that doesn't mean they meet high ethical standards, and that doesn't mean people should patronize them.
Absolutely not. I crossed out E both times because the stimulus says:
"exceptionally learned women were labelled as preternatural or essentially masculine"
AC E just says:
"Women who demonstrated intellectual attainment tended to be regarded as anomalies"
Attainment does not imply excellence. Attainment just implies you've achieved it. AC E just says "women who have achieved intellect" and DOES NOT imply an exceptional intellect, which is what the passage says!!
In other passages this one word would be the differentiator between the right and wrong answer, but for this passage it's correct?? How is that okay.
Ack, "A significant number" does NOT mean "most". That tripped me up so bad on E haha. D is also not worded in the exact same sequence as the stimulus was, so I crossed it off. Wake up reminder for me that these types of questions are parallel method of reasoning, not necessarily parallel sequence of reasoning.
I just realized these "logically complete the last paragraph" questions are also "based on the information in the passage". It ISN'T "if this was true", would it complete the argument. Reminder that almost everything in RC has to be supported
Wow this is insane. I got this wrong because LSAT removed the "highlight sentences" part of the AC. I was looking at sentences 6-7 instead of 4-5 because I counted my periods wrong. I got it wrong in Blind Review as well. Absolutely insane handicap LSAC just pulls out for August test takers for no reason.
This took me like 3 minutes and I still got it wrong. Then I showed this to a mechanical engineering student and it took her less than 15 seconds.... Here's what she told me :,)
I was so confused and thinking about whether Westerville and Pulham had different amounts of students, but apparently, that doesn't matter in this case. If one of the percentages is below 38%, the other has to be above 38%. I think it has something to do with averages, but I'm not too sure about that myself. So:
Here's an analogy my friend told me about test scores that was helpful for me. Imagine your goal score is a 38% in a class. There are only 2 assignments that can give points, your midterm and your final.
Your midterm is only worth 1 point. Your final is worth 450201281000 points.
You score a 37% on your midterm.
How much do you have to score on your final to get an 38%?
Even though your final is worth SO MUCH MORE than your midterm, you CANNOT score below a 38%. It's because of that 37% on your midterm—it's bringing your grade down slightly, so the highest you can get can only be 37.99%. You want a 38% as your goal score, then for your final 38.1% is the lowest minimum you can go to. Anything below that is impossible to raise your grade to your goal score.
To compare, imagine your goal score (Harrison) is 38%. You score a 29% on your midterm (Westerville). What do you need to score for your final (Pulham) in order to get to your goal score? Even if your final is worth 400x more than your midterm (even if Pulman has a million more students than Westerville), it cannot be lower than 38%, otherwise the % will not pull up.
(I still only understand about 70% of this, hope to never see a % math question on the LSAT again. gg)
@LennonWard I guess the stimulus depends on the word "ever (never) found", because if the supposed 4/5th of the otters were never found, we don't actually know if they're dead or alive. They might have a previous population count, but they haven't been able to find every single otter.
they're missing or dead :(
This question reminds me of a line from a toxic romance novel, "Who said, just because you love me, I have to love you?" XD
Basically, there's a difference between who is the active "liker" in the premises of chimps and humans.
P1: Chimps who are affectionate are more likely to be defended (The affectionate chimp is the liker)
P2: Humans are willing to defend those they have feelings of affection for (The defender is the liker)
A necessary assumption is that, at least SOME chimps that are defenders has to like the affectionate chimp back. Otherwise, there's no connection between the social role in humans-chimps, because the active liker is different in both premises. Maybe chimps don't defend those they like, just like how humans don't defend someone just because that someone likes them.
Just learned "contention" doesn't have to mean "in disagreement", it could just be a stated claim. So D just means "provide additional support for a claim made in the second paragraph". Why...
My take on this question:
Citizens Conclusion: Do NOT develop the hiking trail.
Citizens Premise: People will litter.
Author's Premise(s): That premise is bad. Most people will not litter.
Author's Conclusion: We SHOULD develop the hiking trail.
But what if there are other reasons why we shouldn't develop the hiking trail? What if the location is very dangerous for hiking, or it'll be too costly to remove the railroad, or the residents living near the railroad object to people walking through their backyards? There could be many other reasons why we should not develop the hiking trail. Just because the author defeats the citizens' support, does not mean that the opposite conclusion is true.
If the author's conclusion was along the lines of, "Therefore, the citizens' support is lacking" rather than stating the opposite, "We should develop the hiking trail", then that should be a valid argument. Because the author attacks one of the citizens' premises as weak, but then makes the opposite conclusion (or says their conclusion is "false").
@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.
@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.
Hello! I was wondering if anyone knew the importance of your resume for law school applications straight out of undergraduate. I've had a few jobs and internships, but they are fairly eccentric (psychiatry, teaching, education, religion, etc). I've basically got nothing that would indicate I have an interest in the legal field.
Does anyone know how much significance T14 or T30 schools put on your resume and previous legal experience? I want to go to law school to become a lawyer, but I haven't been able to find any opportunities as an undergraduate.
Thank you!
@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! 😅
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
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!!
@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.
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!!
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
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.
Absolutely terrible!! I was an 8th grade history teacher over the summer. Does that make me a historian??? No!! That's why I thought E was correct. At least in Passage B the author says "our future colleagues" which implies she's both a teacher AND a lawyer...
wow LSAT