- Joined
- Aug 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
My first exam back in June was a 153. I still have my November LSAT scheduled, because I thought there was no shot I got better than 157-159. I just bought the score preview thing for the November exam this morning in case it drops off, but MAN, does this feel good 😊
Literally thought to myself, "C sounds a little mean, but it's the most correct one." LMAO
Wish I knew that before answering the question lol. But thanks for the tip anyways
I'm glad that I not only got this right, but that it was reasonable for me to have spent well over 2 minutes on it, too
I'm sorry, but this is the first time in my entire educational journey, where knowledge of astrology, crystals and/or star signs was a prerequisite. That stuff isn't real, and making us operate with that knowledge is stupid, unnecessary, and frankly, unhelpful in the context of law or the lsat.
I just don't see how the city's ability to raise the rates is relevant at all to this discussion. Pundit claims that it was a mistake for the city to sell to a private company, because they raised fees, and the city deserves to profit from it. We don't have any reason to think that the city wasn't making a profit before, only that the private company is making more profit now than the city was, thanks to the fee increase. How much the city profited from the charges seems entirely irrelevant, because the issue for the Pundit sounds as though it stems from the fact that the PC is profiting, while the city is not. Whether the city makes, for example, $1 or $5 for the charges doesn't matter, only that the amount be >$0. Please explain why the city's ability to have raised fees holds any weight in this question, let alone being a necessary truth.
I contend that they used the word either in a very misleading way. I fully eliminated A, because of how they used it
Honestly, the only reason I got C was because the majority of the prompt talks about other people judging other's happiness, and all 4 other answers made definitive statements about what is required or sufficient to be happy, while C talks about other people's opinions or views.
But C can't be correct, though. Because the prompt stipulates that she must request the cancellation AND do so in writing. A call is not a form of writing, ergo policy denial is justified by the prompt.
Had to talk with several people to get a proper explanation. Basically, the very first sentence of the prompt dictates the entire course of the question. They got tricky by using the term permitted as a sufficient condition, and not a necessary term. Because children under 6 are only allowed to swim before noon, and the first sentence says all residents are permitted to use the pool on open days, it means that a child under 6 requires the pool to be open before noon, so as to give them time to use it.
@jacek701 I choose E over C, because the question is asking which answer MUST violate at least one, and C doesn't specify whether or not it definitively does, only that it may or may not. E says that the restrictions that WILL be imposed WILL reduce the price received, which was one of the two requirements of the law.
I got stuck between A and C, because the statement was clearly required to be true, but I wasn't sure if the lack of evidence of a bombardment on Mars constituted a "partial justification," or not