Discussions

User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Joined
Jul 2025
Subscription
Core
PrepTests ·
PT135.S2.Q11
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Tuesday, Jul 29

Obviously there is a big issue with E and B is the best answer.

Though, there is an issue with this question. Compared to other PSAr questions, the test makers have drawn a distinction between pausing and stopping. Impermissible is not at all equal to not implementing something immediately. They may decide that the research doesn't matter after not implementing immediately, it just isn't logically equivalent to being impermissible.

0
PrepTests ·
PT130.S1.Q23
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Tuesday, Jul 29

Who says this is a social concern? Who says tariffs are not economically efficient?

The LSAT doesn't get to shove this kind of reasoning in our faces in other questions and then accept it in this one. It is so stupid. This test was created by people who have no standards.

3
PrepTests ·
PT121.S1.Q22
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Tuesday, Jul 29

C would be right if one assumed some people would be ashamed to admit you support that individual either in front of your family or pollers.

E requires an assumption of equal scope: that thinking an election is important actually determines if you will show up or not. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION!!! E IS NO MORE RIGHT THAN C!!!

0
PrepTests ·
PT144.S3.Q2
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Sunday, Jul 27

I got over 170 on this PT, but I got this one wrong (A).

I just figured that there was an inconsistency between the claims in "leading people to develop ineffective presentations" and "responsibility for bad presentations". It is inconsistent to claim that something has the ability to lead people down a path versus being responsible for the presentation.

1
PrepTests ·
PT144.S2.Q24
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Sunday, Jul 27

I still do not understand.

The first part references these books that are special (written by authors in order to give pleasure) inside the superset of all books. Then, the author makes a claim about the superset.

It is wrong to then say that the superset necessarily equals the subset. This is a classic NA trap! I do not get it. Sure, it would be helpful to the argument if this superset equaled the subset, but it isn't necessary.

0
PrepTests ·
PT147.S1.Q22
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Wednesday, Jul 23

Help!

A) may not explain another way in which price gouging is efficient like JY stated, but it does explain the effects of price gouging. This is another explanation (of price gouging). It is uncharitable to confine "explanation" to something so narrow. The LSAT has utilized interpretations of language infinitely more broad than this.

Further, it does dispute an explanation. Countering a premise is definitionally disputing an explanation. "Hey, I eat 20 bowls of ice cream a day" "that is impossible, since you are lactose intolerant". This only disputed an implicit premise, yet the entire explanation was disputed.

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S2.Q17
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Sunday, Jul 20

The answer to B doesn't make sense.

7Sage assumes there is an implicit "All" in front of dinosaurs; "all dinosaurs in the neighborhood would have survived", which allows the response to say "some could have still died and he would have been right still".

This can equally be read as "some dinosaurs..." which would make the opposite mean that (since he is arguing that extinction would not have happened) that he would have to assume that some dinosaurs would remain...

Poor language skills on the language test and poor interpretation.

0
PrepTests ·
PT107.S4.Q5
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Wednesday, Nov 05

#Help

If instead of "In fact," it was worded as "This is not the case," it would be clear that the MP is that the other hypothesis is not the case. How do we know the MP is the hypothesis being true?

1
PrepTests ·
PT151.S1.P2.Q13
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Monday, Aug 04

#help

So for 8, it is not true to say the author explicitly endorsed the hypothesis.

But then for 13, the author is said to have explicitly developed a line of reasoning for it? It sounds like she is explicitly endorsing it.

1
LSAT · -11 on practice section and -3 after blind review
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Sunday, Aug 03

Speed comes with practice. -3 on BR means you understand the content but speed is the next hurdle.

1
LSAT · Answer choices in NA questions
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Sunday, Aug 03

The trick I have employed for these questions is just to check two boxes: 1) Will this advance the argument (So is it sufficient, usually also just a litmus test), and 2) Does this necessarily need to be true in the argument?

So for example:

Dave went to the dollar store. Therefore, Dave bought something.

A) Dave has $100 - This is SA, but not NA because he doesn't need to have this to buy something there.

B) Dave has a pet iguana - This does not advance the argument and probably does not need to be true. The first filter is easier to see than the second usually.

C) Dave has $0.5 - This is necessary because he needs at least this amount of money to buy something at the $1 store

D) There is air - This is also necessary because he needs air to breathe, even though it is not directly related, it does advance the argument.

Usually I just eliminate the unrelated/unhelpful ones, and then when there are a few remaining in the harder questions, eliminate everything that does not NEED to be true for the question. This helped me get to 170+.

0
User Avatar
•

Sunday, Aug 03

LSATLOVER

😖 Frustrated

Problems with Appeal Process

One of my favorite parts of this course was the opening statement about the mechanisms that ensure the test will have good questions, and we should therefore be less concerned about arbitrary distinctions. You say that there is a large board, review processes internally, and there are incentives for test takers to appeal problems since it will improve their scores.

I take issue with the last premise though. I took the LSAT a few months ago and had two really large issues with the administration.

For one thing it started 2-3 hours late and was administered terribly with lots of loud sounds and talking. I wrote a complaint to the LSAC about this and nothing happened. This hurts my confidence in the fairness of the test.

Second, I had a strong suspicion about one of the questions being incorrectly written, but since the questions aren't posted anywhere and there seemingly isn't a way to appeal for adjustments, I have a strong suspicion JY was wrong in his initial course. I do not think there is any way to appeal questions, which is such a shame since this is such an important test and it is developed by a private company with zero oversight and a profit incentive to crank questions out as cheaply as possible.

1
PrepTests ·
PT151.S3.Q17
User Avatar
LSATLOVER
Friday, Aug 01

I do not see how C is necessary. In the prompt, there are two mechanisms to which the fish change: "fish from the experimental hatcheries are bolder than those from traditional hatcheries in exploring new environments and trying new types of food".

C does connect one of the two links, but who says the other one is not sufficient to bridge the gap? C is sufficient but not necessary.

#help

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?