- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Spent 3 minutes waffling. Pretty sure POE is the best way to get out of jail here.
I've been away from home for too long when I speed through the problem, don't even check all the answer choices, and assume that sunny means it's not cold.
I read this argument as saying P1: Ocean has armor, lake has no armor. P2: If armor, fish is smaller. C: Lake's larger size is a better defense than armor.
I chose A because it offers the idea that speed, not larger size is the better defense than armor. So it suggests that the conclusion could be replaced by: Swimming faster is a better defense than having armor.
What's wrong with this? Is it that I overlooked applying the Phenomenon-Hypothesis model?
Nice to know we all fell into the same question trap. The authors would probably disagree with each other on A. But they obviously both disagree with E.
For simplicity: If B said "Every overflow followed from snowfall" instead of "Every snowfall has led to an overflow", it would be right.
A strange RRE question where the correct answer doesn't actually explain why the cheetah has a spotted coat; it only explains why it doesn't need a plain coat. So the strength of the answer is weaker than many other problems of this type.
It's easy to get this question wrong by 1. ignoring that it is a MSS question, and 2. applying general knowledge of how pollination works. Pollination happens when bees land on flowers and we can easily presume that the more you land on a certain flower (cranberries), the more efficient this bee would be at pollination. However, we cannot apply this implicit mechanism (even though it is largely true to life) and that mechanism makes it easy to pick a few of the wrong choices.
It's really annoying and a giant waste of time. Just completed a few sections where they referenced random phrases all over the passage, and things like "the fourth sentence in the second paragraph". Like four??? I wasted a solid 40s looking for a phrase because I miscounted sentences. Irritating to get used to.
On another note, I hate questions that reference "the fourth sentence" or random phrases in each answer choice all over the passage. It takes a stupid amount of time to find the relevant excerpt. I don't know why the new LSAT format doesn't highlight the referenced excerpt.
Needed to be more precise about the definition of "distinction". If A had said "the conceptual incoherence of a standard/basis of attribution/definition/application of a definition, etc" then it would have been better. But "distinction" means the difference in definitions. And the author does not say that this difference is incoherent.
I looked at the sentence after the parentheses rather than before. Going for E suggests that using diets more efficiently enabled bigger brains. But that is irrelevant because we looked at the wrong sentence.
E is not totally unsupported, it is only less supported than B. Consider "the reader forms the conditions...for this 'aesthetic event'" and "yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol". This implies that a story's "true enjoyment" or best aesthetic experience, relies on a reader's genre orientation when reading. It is weakly supported.
This assumes that rich and aesthetic experiences are enjoyable, which is a very reasonable assumption.
I read Umit as bringing in a different challenge to Henry, referencing "pollution" in general, not just "urban pollution". I would have picked A otherwise, but I assumed that Henry would counter Umit's issue, which is that the vehicles would cause pollution. I read Umit as ignoring Henry's original point for a larger point of total pollution. Therefore, I had Henry responding to Umit's new challenge.
In a problem like this, it's tricky because his wording made him seem flawed. I suppose the solution is to recognize that the question type would require presupposing that Umit's response is relevant.
Why is this marked as a Strengthen and not a Sufficient Assumption question?
This passage was particularly challenging because I didn't really understand what ethnography and its method is. While we always claim coming into the LSAT naive is ok, it would have helped to know that ethnography relates to the evolution of culture and customs and historic trace of cultural practices. Hence the questions referring to non-Mesolithic people who can give evidence for Mesolithic practices. Now, idk what your majors were, but this was definitely new to me.
One small issue that misled me: I assume that the "reject" means that they cannot hold these incompatible views. In other words, even if they are not aware of the contradiction, they are not allowed as scientific people to hold Minsk any longer. This might come from my own science background. Therefore, I selected E because it rules out that they would reject Wang instead. If Brown-Eisler cannot allow Minsk in the presence of Wang, we can either throw out Minsk or throw out Wang. E says we cannot throw out Wang. Therefore, the scientists cannot accept Minsk. This "reject" is stronger than a personal belief—it is a scientific model that you operate with. It is independent of your current awareness.
Conclusion has 2 parts: Safety is NOT because car is safer. And, safety is because driven by low-risk drivers. Strengthen either element. C is tempting because it strengthens the evidence that minivans are the safest vehicles. However, when the conclusion is about a REASON for a phenomenon, not just a claim about whether a phenomenon is true, strengthening tends to flow in terms of justifying the reasoning, not the evidence provided.
D also commits the flaw of an unrepresentative sample (men in premise, everyone in conclusion). This is a flaw found in the stimulus.
There's no real support for B in my opinion. Author indicates that oral tradition presents difficulties for the aboriginal claims, but expresses no indication that this proposed remedy is something he's support. You'd have to take in his generally sympathetic attitude towards the aboriginals from later paragraphs.
SpencerY
Is it true that RC passages/questions increase in complexity/difficulty as the section progresses?
Title says it all. Heard a rumor somewhere that this is a real thing, and AI bot mentioned it lol. Can anyone confirm that in a RC section, passages 4 vs 1 tend to be different?
@ConnerKline I would draw attention to the use of the term "symptom". Both group types exhibit failure to consider alternatives, self-censorship (deliberate or accidental), and general ineffectiveness. By surfacing several similar symptoms and no clearly unique symptom between the two group types, it becomes quite plausible that author would agree with E. It is only clear that he distinguishes the causes of the symptoms. Identifying several shared symptoms and no unshared symptoms suggests that it could be that all symptoms might be shared in the right situation.
Combine this with a somewhat tentative support ("typically, then") for B, and this becomes a question with a smaller margin between correct B and wrong E than most questions I've seen.
Chose E because of a shortage of time led me to read the passage generally to support that noncohesive and groupthink share the same symptoms: but those symptoms I refer to are simply ineffectiveness, fiascoes, failure to consider alternative options. Indeed, they do share MANY of the same symptoms, by different causes. Groupthink results from complacency, noncohesion from fear. It can be hard in real time to discard E because of the word symptom. Ineffectiveness, disregard of alternatives, lack of disagreement, self-censorship (deliberate or accidental) are all symptoms by different causes.
B and E are the only plausible responses I think, and the use of symptom suggests that the groups share at least some symptoms. The author never suggests they could share ALL symptoms, but he also neglects to occlude this possibility by identifying ANY one SYMPTOM that is clearly unique to groupthink or low-cohesion. By identifying many shared symptoms and no unique ones, it is plausible, even probable, that the author would agree with E. I see that B is perhaps more directly supported, but I would argue not by much and certainly by a smaller margin than other questions I've encountered.
If you're too young for this test, you might also equate a TV set with a TV screen since every other component has become so much less visible to us today.