- Joined
- Jan 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
With strengthen and weaken Q's, hypothetical statements can't really strengthen or weaken arguments. How someone "feels" or how "just" something sounds might sound great, but is it an actual fact that weakens/strengthens the argument?
Trying to simply break this down
Paradox/Anamoly/Issue:
Why don't Cheetahs follow the rule of species with spotted coats are at home in tres and dappled forests?
A: Correct, because they have a different hunting pattern than the species that live in the trees and dappled forests.
B: This just says they have their prey stolen more often. That doesn't help to explain at all. Doesn't apply to anything even said in stimulus.
C: What I orginally picked, but all this is saying/supporting is that they don't live in forests. We already know that. We wanna know WHY they don't follow the rule mentioned in the stimulus.
D: Doesn't help, nothing in stimulus mentions anything about this
E: Doesn't help
For some reason argument part questions give me more trouble than they probably should
In the 8 months i have been studying for the LSAT, this is probably the worst question i've ever seen
Is the author saying "this objection is groundless" sort of a giveaway of the weak argument cookie cutter flaw?
This question should remind you that this is an experimental section. Don't beat yourself up
Some of these questions, I see how they're right and how my answer was wrong, but holy shit, how am i supposed to infer this under a timed condition?
I got absolutely destroyed on S2 of 151 LR today during my practice. -12 when I've been around -6 to -8 on my sections recently. I guess it's just notoriously hard. I am a little worried though, since the modern tests are harder.
I also just scored a 150 on my first PT and I'm kinda wondering the same thing. Lol
I realize this might be a common or frustrating issue, but I’m seeing a discrepancy in my recent LR results. Earlier today, I completed a 15-question drill and scored 10/15. During my Blind Review, I technically scored 11/15; however, I switched three previously correct answers to incorrect ones. Essentially, my logical understanding should have gotten a 14/15.
Because this was an untimed section, the 7Sage analytics are difficult to interpret; eight questions are flagged for review despite only five being truly incorrect on the second pass. Has anyone else encountered this frequently? I understand I should stick with my gut if I’m confident in an answer, even if it’s flagged for Blind Review, but the data still feels misleading.
C does strengthen a little by saying yeah, it's the only neurotransmitter that can leak... but did it actually leak and strengthen the argument here? We're trying to attack a specific situation here, that it was and ONLY glutimate. This is like a general statement, not specific enough. D actually fully guarantees that it was glutimate and ONLY glutimate.