User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Joined
Jan 2026
Subscription
Core

International candidate with nGPA.

Aiming for Columbia, NYU, Cornell, and Duke.

Admissions profile

LSAT
172
CAS GPA
0.0
1L START YEAR
2028

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT102.S3.Q4
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Sunday, Jul 5

@Allen_the_Alien “One scientist noted that algae absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” and “Largely unchanged”

If something has a certain characteristic, and it hasn’t changed largely, it is reasonable to believe it had same characteristics in the past.

1
User Avatar
•

Edited Tuesday, Jun 30

Urbi_et_Orbi

💪 Motivated

EMEA timezone online study group (aiming 175+)

Hi!

I had my first official test on June and got 172.

I'm looking for group of people in EMEA timezone who are willing to join daily online 1-hour study sessions to motivate themselves on drilling and avoiding "just one day off".

I'm currently living in UTC+4 timezone, and I'm thinking about 9 PM to 10 PM in my local time every day to practice and teach each other. You don't really need to be in timezone as long as you can join the study session.

Let me know if you are interested.

EMEA timezone study group
User AvatarUser AvatarUser AvatarUser Avatar
4 members  ·  Last active 2 weeks ago
2
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q23
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Edited Wednesday, Jun 10

@Stas1973 If the government cannot determine whether the citizens have the majority of the resulting company or not, couldn't we argue that the government failed to "ensure" majority share owned by the citizens?

2
General · Do you like PrepTest equivalent?
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Sunday, May 31

I think it should be available only for sections and >10 questions drills

8
PrepTests ·
PT101.S4.P2.Q12
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Tuesday, Mar 3

@Stas1973 Ohhh the property meant the ground where the grave was located! I've also missed that part and got really confused with the explanation.

3
PrepTests ·
PT102.S3.Q4
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Tuesday, Feb 24

@Elle I believe A actually strengthens the hypothesis. If diatoms went through major evolutionary changes since the last ice age, one can argue "Just because 'modern diatoms' absorb carbon dioxide, we can not assume 'ice age diatoms' absorbed carbon dioxide since it changed so drastically".

So A actually blocks a possible argument against the hypothesis, thus strengthening the it.

1
PrepTests ·
PT102.S3.Q4
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Tuesday, Feb 24

@Stas1973 Yes, maybe some shells of diatoms in the sediment of last ice age might not be there due to fishes or any other events.

But wouldn't it be also the case for any other periods? Unless we can assume "any other events" only affected shells of diatoms in specific period - which we can't - it would be reasonable to believe the diatoms shells in the sediment is proportional to its population of that age.

To be honest A,B,C and E does not undermine the hypothesis in any way and I chose D by the method of elimnation.

2
PrepTests ·
PT133.S3.Q22
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Thursday, Jan 29

@RyanTalbot321 I just went through BR on this question and now I can explain.

The second part of principle says when the office "should" get commendation. Just because Penn is not in a position to "should" have received commendation, we can't assume Penn "should not" receive commendation.

Remember, opposite of "should" is not "shouldn't", but "not necessarily" in logics.

The only way we can conclude Penn should not receive MC is assuming Penn was not eligible from the beginning.

4
PrepTests ·
PT118.S3.Q8
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Wednesday, Jan 21

To be honest I chose C just because other statements are supporting wildlife commission.

The wildlife commission literally started their argument by stating development of wetlands has resulted in species being endangered. Unless supported by further evidence which demonstrates how "Figorian wetland development" is different from "development of wetlands in industrialized nations", C is very weak argument.

1
PrepTests ·
PT103.S2.Q12
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Wednesday, Jan 21

@MichaelKrayyem There's no logical correlation between pollution and high-fat diet - which is why D is answer.

D provides alternative explanation on why countries with high-fat diets have higher cancer rate (i.e. pollution, which happens to be in high level in high-fat countries, cause cancer), thus weakening the argument.

B also provides alternative explanation on the reason(wealth), but relies on further assumption that wealth cause cancer - thus being worse at weakening the argument.

Pollution causes cancer -> makes sense.

Wealth causes cancer -> people will start asking why

2
PrepTests ·
PT111.S4.Q10
User Avatar
Urbi_et_Orbi
Wednesday, Jan 21

@dreamingofwharton I think (E) does strengthen the hypothesis in some way since it eliminates the possibility of CJD being result of blood injection, regardless of Alzheimer "virus".

However D is certainly much stronger statement to support the hypothesis since it actually shows connection between Alzheimer and CJD virus, rather than eliminating one of countless other explanation.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?