- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Live
是梦吧
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@PerpetuallyConfused Exactly. Eating an apple is not morally wrong, but it would be strange to call it morally right.
@Njbrunette They're not actually. This section (#2) was actually from PT 82, whereas the rest of the sections (#1, #3, and #4) were from PT 86.
The reason is because the LSAC reconstructed the disclosed tests so that they replicate a 4-section test. Otherwise, they would all be 3-sections, as they do not disclose experimental sections.
@SelinI I see your point. However, if the reason you want it on your stats is because of, say, the reality of multi-day testing accommodations, then this can be replicated by taking the full PT but exiting out of it between sections (this removes the automatic countdown).
Otherwise, if you are referring to individual sections taken over the course of your practicing without necessarily attempting to replicate a full PT to begin with, then having these sections auto-compile into full PT scores would likely skew the data upwards due to the removed structural constraints.
@LSAT101 Precisely! The "in principle" is pulling a lot of the weight here.
Hey! I actually do individual sections and calculate my full score too! The easiest way to do this is to add up your -Xs from each scored section and look at the table here: 7Sage LSAT | Score Calculator & Converter
Say you completed the three scored sections from PT 156 and got -1, -2, and -4. That totals to -7, and you can find the score for -7 on PT 156 like so (171):
I am starting a position as a legal assistant in September, and it would be the only legal position I will have on my resume. I also plan on having the lawyer be one of my references.
Would it be wiser to apply in late November/early December to give this position more time on my resume, and for the reference letter to be more relevant? I heard that for Yale, it genuinely doesn't matter when I apply, so I assume that the answer to this question would be "Yes" for Yale specifically.
But what about the other T6s?
"All drugs" in AC B is supported because Dario would allow any drug that isn't already patented (i.e. new) to be granted a patent, and those that are already patented are ones that Dario agrees with them being patented.
Bottom line is that AC B does NOT commit Dario to agree that any drug compound should be granted a patent more than once, so it saying "all drugs" instead of "all new drugs" is supported.
This way this question works is that it prompts you to believe there are two potential reasons for humans' ability to detect the extroversion: culture or biology.
What the chimpanzee premise is supposed to establish is that the ability is not cultural.
There are two ways to attack this argument:
1) Show that the ability to detect dominance in chimps is indeed cultural.
2) Show that the ability to detect dominance in chimps is completely separate from the ability to detect extroversion in humans.
AC C goes for 2) by strengthening the ties between dominance in chimps and extroversion in humans. Sure, it does not prove that the conclusion, but it nonetheless ties human extroversion and chimp dominance together, and pair this with the fact that the rest of the answers are so much worse, we have to choose AC C.
@AlexHaro His statement shows that he grasps Carla's statements about the benefits of research, but that the connection Carla made between that and supporting professors taking time off from teaching flew right over him.
Look at it this way: Even for us to understand how Carla's premise supports her conclusion, we need to make an inference; David's response shows that he failed to see this connection.
@HimajaReddy I want to point out that hypocrisy itself is not a reasoning error. It is the fact that the author impugns the motives of Roehmer, which happens to be a hypocritical move, that constitutes the flaw.
@lindsaywasserberger269 We know that the mail advertisements induced millions of purchases from home because we are given this causal statement:
Because of direct-mail advertising, millions of people buy products by phone or online.
Thus, it can be inferred that if it weren't for these advertisements, home purchases would be less by millions, and AC B would suggest that these millions would be purchased anyway but at the store.
ACs D and E can be ruled out because if one were the right answer, then the other would have to be as well, and there cannot be two right answers.
@sofiesunshine My rule of thumb when it comes to ambiguity is to first interpret the ACs in their least charitable interpretation, and if this leads to ruling out every AC, then go back and reinterpret those that were ruled out for an ambiguity.
@flowerberry The way AC A allows the conclusion to be properly drawn is because we are told that money is a universal phenomenon, i.e. ALL societies have it. If it is the case that some societies have never had contact with and been influenced by any other society, then the fact that these societies have developed money shows that there are some societies that independently developed money without having been influenced by other societies.
@ZulymarPerez It draws attention to the implicit assumption that high salary is the only relevant financial reward.
@mikeross-jr I think you are interpreting "different aircraft" as meaning different types of aircraft; however, if you interpret it as referring to each individual aircraft, then it becomes a situation where flying at the same altitude involves the risk of collision.
@SpencerY I think you are interpreting "different planes" to refer to different types of planes. If you were to interpret it to mean any individual plane, then you would likely have a better time accepting it.
@HazelNi Oh really? I would definitely want to practice in the default size used by LSAC.
@HazelNi Yes, needed is definitely an issue with AC C, as we know that rubisco is not needed to convert carbon dioxide into a nongas molecule in C-4 plants.
@johnwilsonbooth847 But notice how in C-4 plants, the carbon dioxide gets converted into a non-gas molecule before reaching the rubisco. Thus, rubisco is not needed to perform the conversion, as demonstrated by the C-4 plants.
@kittymeowmeow The word choice of "inequitably" hints at the author's attitude that he finds the record companies, publishers, managers, and other intermediaries blame-worthy.
@LSAT1011 It is true that it's possible for the pike elimination to have been successful 4 years ago but that the fish returned recently. That is what makes this am MSS question and not a MBT question, and is also probably why it's a 3-star rather than a 1-star question; because it requires you to make an inference that could be false.
@lavender-haze You are right that if the president's speech wasn't inflammatory, then Riley's argument falls apart. However, notice how the author isn't just concluding that Riley's argument is inadequate; the author is concluding that Riley's conclusion is false. Successfully attacking an argument (which the author doesn't actually do) severs the supports flowing into the argument's conclusion, but this does not allow for concluding that the conclusion is false.
6:20 😂