- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
@arose
The gap: Why do we need to abandon the use of chemical fertilizers? Why can't we just get the farmers to start growing "green-manure" crops with fertilizers again? The big assumption is that we can't use both.
A-- Why alfafa? They could use another green-manure crop... right?
B-- doesn't need to be true... if we do the negation test... "chemical fertilizers themselves have not had a destructive effect on the soil structure of farm fields" the conclusion that we need to stop using chemical fertilizers could still stand
E-- if it was truly that many, if not all farmers COULD grow green-manure crops without abandoning using of chemical fertilizers the argument falls apart
@e.wimoine I'm not sure what the official Lawgic response would be but here was what I wrote out that got me to the right answer:
Calm shallow waters -> easily polluted by nutrient-rich sewage -> algae proliferate -sometimes-> rich food source for microoorgs -> kill fish
@FavourAdelakun Something like: The radio station claims its format is popular because more than three-quarters of callers say they like it. However, a more recent survey conducted by a neutral third party of all listeners—not just callers—found that most listeners dislike the format. Therefore, the conclusion that the format is popular with listeners is incorrect.
D is such a low bar to support (which is great for this type of question)
A could be true but receives little/no strong support (especially compared to D)
C we truly have no clue on other than to say that Stuart's work often used West's terminology, which none of Stuart's contemporaries used ... but that doesn't mean these contemporaries weren't influenced by West only that they didn't use his terminology at that particular point in time
A similar (more obvious) flaw would be something like
Most yoga teachers have taught 100+ classes. Furthermore, most fitness teachers who have taught 100+ classes understand how steroids work. Therefore, most yoga teachers understand how steroids work.
@linyang55 On D—Passage B would actually (likely) say that it is at least possible to represent the past accurately in works of literature. Moreover, A never discusses the impossibility about doing it—just that historical fiction would be less good.
ON C—falsehood is essential (according to these authors) to historical nonfiction and autobiography respectively
@ellenlululu548 Scientifically, I have not a clue maybe??
But in this passage NO ... per the last sentence
@EvanRaygoza Super fair objection—I struggled with C too. What helped me is focusing on the phrase “not uncommon.” That’s pretty weak language—it just means something happens sometimes, not that it happens often or reliably. Even if we’re generous, that could be like ~30–50%, which doesn’t do much to weaken the argument.
D isn’t a perfect weakener either, but it uses stronger language (“violation”) and more directly challenges the claim. So between the two, D has more weakening force than C.
@HarryRaftus Exactly!! Especially for this question we're strengthening the GROUNDS not only the conclusion itself. B strengthens those grounds!
@lebronfan I resonate with that. I think for this question easily dissolved doesn't mean they were dissolved and also may have been in contact with steam doesn't mean were in contact/completely dissolved by steam.
Moreover, in a MSS question the answer choice doesn't need a high muster to pass... it just needs to be better than the others which in this case it def is
Quick sanity check before test day:
Over my last ~10 PTs I’ve been scoring 167–175, with most in the low–mid 170s (171–174). I also had two recent full simulations at 171–172.
That said, my last two LR sections were both -4 (I’m usually around -1 to -2), which has me a little in my head.
Review suggests it was more execution (overthinking, a couple careless misses) than gaps in understanding.
Does this just sound like normal fluctuation right before test day, or something to be concerned about?
@SelinCanker Fair point. I think the thing that really helped me for this question was that even though yes you do need to make an assumption from "credited with having anticipated subsequent development in the arts" to "the ability to anticipate later artists." There is absolutely no way one can make a reasonable assumption from the author's point of view to E. In fact, it's one the primary purpose of the author in this passage to argue against E.
@jujujube Exactly! I was also tripped on this for a bit but ended up choosing D because for example
I'm capable of feeling grief does NOT equal that I've experience grief.
To make A correct we could change the answer choice to ... "A computer can create artwork that expresses sorrow or love only if it is capable of experiencing such an emotion"
@Daisy228 Fair question. I also chose B so I'm trying to understand why C is right.
Broad strokes answer to your question, all the other answer choices are terrible. This is essentially a most strongly supported question. The author may very well be wrong with their thoughts that grapes are responsible BUT C is definitely the one that the AUTHOR would be most likely to agree with. Hope this helps!
@sageecko612
Premise: If we renovate next year, we will go over budget. If we don't renovate this year, we must renovate next year.
Conclusion: If we stay in this year budget, we won't be able to next year.
Why? There's a gap? Why can't we stay in budget this year and renovate this year?
We need to assume that we CANNOT renovate and stay in budget for the argument to follow.
D MUST be true!
@KevinStanlake I think a better reason why D is wrong (at least for my understanding since I chose it at first pass) is that they spend the SAME amount of money on food as opposed to the goverment spending MORE on taxes
How can we say general use in C when the final sentencing is about enlivening a specific sector?
As the discussion touches on : neither express opinion on this
B- A disagrees (it may be tempting to assume they agree but she doesn't care about diversity of audiences, she cares about the equity of reaching differing audiences) and B agrees with the overarching conclusion that there is no justification for public arts funding at all
D is right a agrees, b disagrees because it reflects tastes of selection committees... he believes many people would not take advantage of subsidized cultural opportunities
@linyang55 I totally agree. The answer choices all suck—including A. But we can reasonably (ish) fill that gap. If social capital are things that build community (as defined in Passage A), then we can infer that national defense ( a public good according to B) builds community (kinda, Ik this is a stretch. )...... so since art is not a public good like national defense, then it doesn't build social capital.
It's just a terrible question. This is the best explanation I've got
@habasemah C is right because the author bremains more neutral and doesn't advocate for an opinion .... comparatively the author a advocates for a change
@daviddao1993700 General advice: identify adjectives, adverbs, emotive language
Real advice: it can take years to build the skill—read absolutely everything you can
This passage specifically: passage A is more opinionated ("the law should focus..." "if it is really true... then it not worth")
@YaraKreshan Evidence of lacking (or bad evidence) doesn't mean lack of evidence for an argument. Perhaps there are other good reasons! You got it!
@k13lawwwwww There's a couple ways to get to B on this answer choice.
The way I did it was process of elimination A, C, D, E don't to any appreciable degree weaken the argument.
So even though I didn't understand why B was right, I was able to chose it and flag it to better understand.
Which leads to the second way to get to B. The stimulus argues that experiencing a traumatic event, without developing PTSD, CAUSES one to have raised cortisol levels during stressful moments.
B introduces an alternative explanation, namely it reverses causation. What if having higher levels of cortisol (pre exposure to traumatic event) prevented the PTSD? That is what B gets at and how it weakens the argument.