Community Profile

PT123.S1.P3.Q15

Stas1973

13 hours ago

For anyone who was turned off by the word 'profitably' in (A), here is how it is quite supported:

The support comes directly from P2. Here is my understanding of this difficult chunk.

Consequently, a short-term savings in start-up costs precluded the long-term benefits deriving from the development of local production capacity and technological skill, which eventually would have led to independence from costly foreign expertise.

The $ they got in the short-term prevented $ in the long-term. The long-term $ would have come from independence from foreign control since there would be more local skill and production.

Here we are told that there would be $ made in the long term (if they had local participation). Therefore, we can infer that it is possible to make a profit from solar systems.

1

PrepTests ·

PT123.S3.Q21

Stas1973

17 hours ago

@SlippinJimmy2026 I made a comment about this above but B weakens by questioning the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. D, as you mention, counters the premise directly, which is not what we are looking for.

1

PrepTests ·

PT123.S3.Q21

Stas1973

Edited 14 hours ago

This is one of those arguments where the writers want us to sympathize with the author. They describe a problem (limitations on grain production) to get us to accept their conclusion (meat consumption will soon be morally unacceptable).

But this is precisely what we need to be critical about.

An ethicist concludes that we must accept that consuming meat will soon be morally unacceptable. Why?

(1) 16lbs. of grain are needed for an animal to produce 1lb. of meat.

(2) Not as much grain is being produced, less area to produce the grains, and more people to feed.

(3) 16lbs. of grain could feed many more humans than 1lb. of meat.

Okay... so if I have 16lbs. of grain in my garage, I could use it to feed (say...) 20 humans, or I could produce 1lb. of meat to feed 2 humans. Still, the ethicist is assuming that engaging in an environmentally unsound practice is morally unacceptable. However, after a first take through the answer choices, we notice how none of the options call out this assumption. Therefore, it's likely there is another assumption we've missed.

(A) The first part of this answer choice seems to be making a concession that it's possible for no meat consumption to be healthy... even though the ethicist never agreed with this (all they said was that meat was more nutritious than grain). That's the first problem I have with this answer choice. Next, they tell us that many people are willing to pay for it. But this doesn't tell us anything about our conclusion.... will meat consumption soon be morally acceptable or not?

(B) So some meat can be produced on land that cannot produce grain. If true, this answer choice provides an alternative option (hey.... well actually we can transform more land) that questions the conclusion... it's no longer supported that meat consumption will soon be morally unacceptable.

(C) Someone who eats grains could add on other non-meat foods to make it as nutritious as meat. AKA, it's possible for grains to be as nutritious as meat. Okay, but does that challenge our conclusion? This in fact seems like a recommendation the ethicist might offer in a following sentence. It supports the ethicists argument.

(D) The difference between B (correct answer choice) and D (trap answer choice):

D attacks the premise itself, which is not what we are trying to do with weaken questions. With weaken questions, we must attack the relationship between the premise.

While B says "premises are true, but they don't support the conclusion," D says "the premises are not necessarily true."

B: the farmland used for grain production isn't necessarily the same farmland used for meat production
D: we don't have to have large areas of farmland going out of production each year.

Another issue with D is that it suggests that the amount of farmland could decrease less, but doesn't state how much less. Is it enough to make the consumption of meat not be 'morally unacceptable?' We have no clue.

(E) The main issue with this option is that the ethicist never recommended a diet composed solely of grain. This answer choice might weaken if the argument said "we must eat solely grain products."

1

PrepTests ·

PT110.S1.P3.Q18

Stas1973

Yesterday

This question is a test of our understanding of P4. We must understand the difference between vertical and horizontal transmission.

All we need to know by the end of P4 is that P2 describes vertical transmission, and P3 describes horizontal transmission.

P2 discusses the cell wall presence, so it's not horizontal transmission as mentioned in (E), but vertical transmission.

1

PrepTests ·

PT110.S1.P3.Q16

Stas1973

Yesterday

@corean7polar724 Hi, I think you are reading into (B) too much. It's super analogous to the giraffe example mentioned in P1.

Also, recall that Lamarck's hypothesis is that an animal's use or disuse of a body part affects how it develops in offspring.

Although many of the other answer choices describe tendencies of the use of a body part, only (B) refers to the use/disuse of an organ.

1

PrepTests ·

PT118.S1.Q12

Stas1973

Yesterday

A phenomenon is described: fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills have reproductive abnormalities.

Okay, so I'm thinking that these fish reproduce baby fish with, say, 3 eyes, or funky tails.
I also have no clue what a paper mill is, but that's okay, because enough tools are in the passage for us to figure out what's going on here. So I'm thinking that a paper mill is like some sculpture!? Let's see.

One hypothesis is provided: the paper mill releases dioxin, and dioxin changes the hormones in fish.

Okay, this seems plausible. So a chemical from this paper mill makes fish hormones super high or low.

Now the author tells us that the dioxin hypothesis is probably not true.

What? That sounded like it made a lot of sense. Why not?

Well, it's unlikely because the fish go back to their regular hormone levels quickly when the paper mill is shutdown. And, dioxin takes a long time to decompose in the water.

So when there is no dioxin coming out of the mill, but there is still dioxin in the water, the hormones go back to normal.
More support is then given because dioxin takes super long to leave the water, so while the fish are still in there, their hormone levels are still off.

Now it seems that the author's logic sort of makes sense. But since this is a weaken question, we've been fooled. There has to be some fatal assumption the author is making.

One idea that I have is that the dioxin could be responsible for the reproductive abnormalities in a way that's not related to hormone levels. For example, maybe dioxin makes the fish super skinny, and then the fish's reduced body size makes them have birth defects.

Sadly though, none of the answer choices address my prephrased assumption.

(A) is an ad hominem attack. Eliminate immediately!

(B) sure, this is possible. In this stimulus though the author tells us that dioxin decomposes very slowly. So it's totally possible that (B) is in line with our stimulus.

(C) if true, the dioxin would not be present in the water closest to the fish when the paper mills shut down. So the hormone levels could be going back to normal because the dioxin is not actually present. Our conclusion is now called into question because the premises don't support it.

(D) okay, but was it the dioxin or not that caused the hormone concentrations? We have no clue. It doesn't support or weaken our conclusion that the hypothesis is unlikely.

(E) whether it is or is not well understood doesn't matter. This answer choice is analogous to saying that our lack of understanding about the galaxy weakens our current scientific knowledge about planets.

1

PrepTests ·

PT118.S3.Q9

Stas1973

3 days ago

Without a prephrase (C) might look tempting because it strengthens a completely different conclusion.

The author concludes that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart. There is no conclusion made about how bad shellfish is for the heart in comparison to meat/eggs/poultry. So we couldn't care less what the nutritional make-up of meat/eggs/poultry is. We only care about our conclusion that shellfish is not necessarily bad for the heart, based on the premises that it is low in saturated fat.

The assumption the author makes is that having low saturated fat is not necessarily bad for the heart. But all we know is that low saturated fat affects blood cholesterol levels more than dietary cholesterol. But how so? Maybe it elevates blood cholesterol, or decreases it? We don't know. And that's exactly what (D) tells us.

1

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q19

Stas1973

3 days ago

You're taking a college class. Your final grade /100% consists of four assessments. 2 exams, and 2 mini essays.

A non-weighted average assumes that every assessment is worth 25% [100/4 = 25].
A weighted average considers how much emphasis is put into each assessment. For example, [Exam 1 = 40%, Exam 2 = 40%, Mini Essay 1 = 10%, Mini Essay 2 = 10%]

The economist's conclusion is not weighted. It results in a paradox because we are not considering that different regions may have different emphasis/weights. That is what (B) points out. A weighted average would not leave us with this paradox.

1

PrepTests ·

PT146.S3.Q20

Stas1973

3 days ago

@Stas1973 It's funny how much I overcomplicated this!

..unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect...

This conclusion is equivalent to saying "If premises, then conclusion."

This is exactly what we see in every other LSAT argument ever. 'Unless the premises don't hold, then the conclusion holds.'

1

PrepTests ·

PT146.S3.Q20

Stas1973

3 days ago

@77 Yes exactly! Kevin mentions this in his video as well.

1

PrepTests ·

PT111.S2.P4.Q26

Stas1973

3 days ago

What I mistakenly took as support for (E) was in P2:

"Where there is no consensus, there is no legal fact of the matter."

We can translate this sentence to: when there is no agreement, there is no legal fact of the matter. To have a legal fact of the matter, there needs to be an agreement.

(E) says that when there is differing moral convictions, there is no legal fact of the matter. We must keep in mind the understanding of the passage to infer what this means. The positivists assert that moral convictions are absolutely irrelevant in answering a legal question (coming to a consensus). In other words, when a consensus is reached, it doesn't matter whether everyone has the same or different moral convictions, because moral convictions just don't play a role.

1

LSAT · [Seeking Advice] Wrong Answer Journal Best Practices

Stas1973

3 days ago

With the caveat that everyone is different, I found that having a digital copy worked much better for me because of how functional it is (copy/paste/search/sort by Q type/sort by mistake).

What I wish I started earlier in my studying that actually helped me is a separate 'revelations' journal to write all my ah-ha moments.

As for the WAJ itself, using techniques like translation as well as analogizing to get to the root of my misunderstanding was super helpful for me.

All the best with your studying!

2

LSAT · I DO NOT recommend taking the LSAT remotely

Stas1973

3 days ago

@baybunny408 Ugh I'm so sorry to hear that.... P.S. best username I've seen yet

3

LSAT · How Do You Avoid Trap Answers in LSAT LR?

Stas1973

3 days ago

The rule of thumb that works for me when I am stuck between two answer choices is this:

If I'm in between 2 answer choices I've either (1) misread something in the ACs, or (2) misread something in the stimulus.

So first, I reread (carefully) each answer choice to see if there is one word that I missed, or a word that completely changes my understanding.

Next, if that still doesn't help, I forget about the ACs completely and 'translate' the stimulus while rereading it once again.

This has really worked for me. Make sure to actually spend time in your reread though and don't just reread it for the sake of rereading it, but instead with the context that "I've missed something here and I'm not understanding it correctly." Try it out and see if it works for you! :)

4

PrepTests ·

PT111.S4.Q20

Stas1973

4 days ago

My misunderstanding in this argument came from the first sentence. 'North American mastodon' means that the mastodon was found in North America.

The whole time I was reading the stimulus I was asking myself, "but where did they find the skeleton?" It was found in North America!

1

PrepTests ·

PT111.S4.Q16

Stas1973

4 days ago

I experienced some hesitation as well before choosing (A). I anticipated that the answer choice would say "the most important environmental problems do not involve large animals."

I was asking myself: is it really necessary that the most important problems have to involve endangered species?

Well as it turns out, it is really necessary. As Kevin points out, the reasoning involves another underlying assumption. The author assumes that the species mentioned in the premises (the soil microorganisms) are endangered species.

Premises: it's harder to feel sympathetic towards organisms like soil microorganisms than it is to feel sympathetic towards large mammals.

Conclusion: publicity campaigns for endangered species are not likely to have an impact on the most important environmental problems.

Notice how when we separate the premises and conclusion, there is a notable gap. 'Publicity campaigns for endangered species' appears in the conclusion but not in the premises. The author is assuming that the premises about soil microorganisms and large mammals are about the effectiveness of two different publicity campaigns for endangered species.

Now that we've established that the author assumed that soil microorganisms are an endangered species, we can see how the author is basically saying that the most important important problems involve soil microorganisms, which are endangered species.

In other words, (A) would still be correct if it said "the most important environmental problems involve social microorganisms."

1

General · LSAT Writing Section

Stas1973

5 days ago

@JosephHindle Hey I found the core curriculum lessons about this to be very helpful. All the best for Saturday!

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q15

Stas1973

6 days ago

For anyone who was not totally satisfied with (D), J.Y. gives a great explanation in the video as to why we don't need to be.

The author makes a huge assumption: that these crust cracks caused earthquakes in Sweden.

Ideally, we'd want a strengthen answer choice to say "crust cracks cause earthquakes when in the same area, and the Ice Age cracks occurred in the same are as the earthquakes in Sweden." Or, maybe that's just me being too optimistic.... lol.

(D) only assures us that the causal relationship is possible, but it doesn't assure us that the cracks occured near Sweden. That's okay though! Since this is a strengthen question, it doesn't need to bullet-proof the argument.

1

PrepTests ·

PT123.S4.P4.Q25

Stas1973

6 days ago

The test makers likely want us to confuse 'historical records' as mentioned in the passage to 'current historians' as mentioned in (C) and (E).

But a 'historical record' is something created in the past, wherein a 'current historian' creates something in the present.

2

Lessons · The Net Effect Tag

Stas1973

6 days ago

PT146.S2.Q16 is an excellent example

1

PrepTests ·

PT118.S4.Q21

Stas1973

6 days ago

The stimulus tells us that:

Expressing potentially offensive, disturbing, or controversial ideas can be inappropriate. But doing so can also be appropriate. When appropriate, it should be done in a civil manner.

expressing such ideas --> appropriate OR inappropriate
appropriate --> done in a civil manner

'Is to be done' can be translated to 'should be done'

According to the author, this is precisely why etiquette is not to be restricted by law. It is sometimes appropriate.

1

LSAT · LSAC Stance on Earplugs for LSAT

Stas1973

Monday, Apr 6

Thanks so much, this is super helpful!

2

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q17

Stas1973

Monday, Apr 6

The climatologists provide us with a causal relationship:

The Earth passing through clouds of dense cosmic dust CAUSES an ice age

(C) supports the climatologists' reasoning because it suggests that cosmic dust causes a decrease in temperature.

1

PrepTests ·

PT123.S2.Q14

Stas1973

Monday, Apr 6

A phenomenon is described:

When raw milk of 50 degrees is heated in a microwave, it keeps 50% of an enzyme. When raw milk of 50 degrees is heated in a conventional heat source, it keeps 100% of an enzyme.

The author concludes a CAUSAL relationship: the microwave destroys the enzyme. And they also rule out another possibility: that heat destroys the enzyme.

Whenever the author provides a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, the author is inevitably overlooking other possibilities. In this question, we must call the author out for this. One way this is possible is by suggesting another cause. Potential ideas could be:

The spinning that occurs in some kitchen appliances such as microwaves is known to destroy enzymes.

However, in this argument, the author is not only saying 'it's the microwave...' the author specifically adds that 'it's not heat.' So an even stronger weakener would show that it IS heat that causes the enzyme loss.

It's a lot harder to prephrase a weakener with this in mind, especially if you don't have a science background. It seems tricky to resolve how the average temp of a beverage could be less than certain areas of the beverage.

But (E) precisely challenges the author by saying 'it's not the microwave, it is actually heat.' Because, certain zones would be hotter.

(C) is complex, but let's translate it.

A liquid exposed to a conventional heat source of exactly 50 degrees Celsius will reach that temperature more slowly than it would if it were exposed to a conventional heat source hotter than 50 degrees Celsius.

So let's say 2 cups of milk were heated by conventional heat sources of different temperatures, one 50 degrees and another 75 degrees. According to (C), heating would take longer in the 50 degree source.

Does this challenge the hypothesis that 'it's microwaves, not heat, that destroys the enzyme?'

Not quite. It's unclear how, if true, this would challenge the author.

I suppose that with (C), the LSAT writers want us to think, "it's not the microwave that is the cause, it's the length of time that it takes to heat the beverage."

But this reasoning is (1) not consistent with what (C) tells us, and (2) unclear whether the same time-temperature relationship also exists for microwaves.

2

Admissions profile

Discussions

Question 'Experts' Idea

Confirm action