Hello 7sagers!
My LSAT study buddy and I BR together. However, we are both scoring around the same on our actual score (low-mid 150's) and BR (mid-high 160's). We are looking for someone who is scoring higher to BR with us. Any advice would be helpful.
@juliet7sage said:
@dk415827 Congratulations!
I hope JY interviews her for the podcast!
I didn't read the question stem. I saw most supports and went straight to the stimulus.
Premises: CR –> /LW
SRO –> LW
lawyers CR
C: If all lawyers are cattle ranchers and all cattle ranchers hate long winters then it is impossible for any lawyers to be a ski resort owner since they all like long winters.
Conclusion: SRO –> /lawyer
A small degree of assumption is ok to make. However, E is telling you that depression made them more prone to injuries, you don't have to assume anything. You don't have to assume Depression → Injuries because E explicitly states that. Treat the answer choices as facts. You might be overthinking it.
By process of elimination I chose B, but could not for the life of me understand why it was right. So maybe if a question seems really difficult look for the 4 wrong answers instead of the right one.
After watching this I still do not know what's going on. Who wants to take on the challenge of explaining this to me like I'm 5 years old?
#help (Added by Admin)
B was so tricky. I read it and thought if its that the narrower ones that are less expensive than the wide ones, then how can that mean it was a status symbol. I eliminated and moved on, not realizing that you would need more to cover the same space, so if it was just slightly less expensive it would still cost a lot more to cover the same area.
I ended up choosing E because everything else looked more wrong.
I was stuck between A and B and chose A, even on BR. I see why B is a better answer, it directly counters the problem Eva had with the radio reports being too short.
Well damn! E sure looked like a weaken answer to me, but then JY said look this explains how they become more skillful and a lightbulb went off. It also confirmed to me that I am in fact an idiot for choosing D.
I think you are thinking of early morning and dawn as two separate times. Dawn and early morning are the same, use them interchangeably.
Premise: They drink it at dawn and enjoy it but drink it in small amounts.
Conclusion: It is because caffeine destroys their sure footedness. In the real world how can this make sense caffeine doesn't do that. Go ahead and ignore what you know about caffeine, let's assume it's a special kind of caffeine, whatever it is it doesn't matter. In order to weaken the conclusion we need to show that it was something other than caffeine that's doing this.
C: Shows an alternative reason (its the soluble narcotics and not the caffeine), and thus weakens the anthropologists' conclusion.
I missed "healthier" and thought who cares about liver, this is about the heart dammit. This is what happens when you read under time pressure.
The stimulus was a bit confusing for me so I had to break it down. This is basically what I was thinking as I read. I meant to make a note but accidentally typed it here, now it wont let me cut-paste.
Premise: It said a North American mastodon with a human made projectile – ok so humans probably killed it. The projectile was dissimilar to any projectile found in that part of Eurasia closest to North America – so this means the North American mastodon travelled to Eurasia? But then it continues by talking about human settlers from Eurasia – so the mastodon lives in North America and the humans in Eurasia?
Conclusion: So since the projectile is dissimilar to anything in Eurasia near North America it most follow that human must have come from more distant parts of Eurasia? So we are to infer that there were no humans already in North America, not that it matters anyway? My brain hurts! That's what I got from the stimulus.
A- If the projectiles don't resemble any used in Eurasia, even the distant parts, then doesn't this weaken the argument that concludes it must have come from more distant parts.
B- This doesn't do anything.
C- This doesn't do anything.
D- This seems to strengthen.
E- This doesn't do anything.
Is it just me or do some ACs make other ACs seem correct. Like C and E, E seemed to strengthen the argument so it made me think C was weakening it. Just me?
#help (Added by Admin)
I see what you mean, JY says people might have depression and get a pet to feel happier. However, "all things being equal" means that the people without pets also have depression and the argument is saying that they are happier without pets. JY didn't say this but I factored it into my reasoning.
The conclusion then makes a leap. It states that if you want to be as happy as possible don't get a pet. D would weaken this. It removes the comparison in the premise (between the pet owners and non pet owners) and only focuses on people with pets, stating that most pet owners are happier because they have pets, weakening the support the premise provides the argument. By only focusing on the people with pets, it makes the "all things being equal" part of the argument irrelevant.
I chose A even though I noticed "maximum" and "all at once". I kept trying to find a better answer. I did give E a second look, but decided who cares what landlords do, that has nothing to do with the argument. I missed that it was just an example. I had already taken 2 minutes on the question and didn't what to spend anymore time trying to understand E.
E explains why they filed for compensation. The argument says workers filed after they were laid off to help them weather the storm of their job loss and to gain benefits they did not deserve. E is saying it was because they were injured on the job due to depression when they learnt they were being laid off. E weakens the argument by showing that they did not do it for benefits they did not deserve.
I chose B because I reasoned if some newspaper editors do not care about journalism school, then they are hiring those students for other reasons. Perhaps great interviewing skills etc. So if the dean is saying the school has value because it's getting students hired and it turns out the school has nothing to do with why the students are being hired, then B weakens the support.
I thought A was irrelevant because who cares where the students came from, the argument is telling us where they went after they graduated. Also, if they came to improve their skills and then go back to journalism are we to assume that them improving their skills at this school had nothing to do with them landing jobs after?
I also see how their previous experience in journalism could be the reason they got jobs and not the fact that they went to the school and thus weakens the support. But how is B wrong?
#help (Added by Admin)
It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. However, we cannot make assumptions that are not based on the facts presented in the stimulus. The stimulus does not say anything about popularity. Even if trendy and popular mean the same thing, B is a better answer. B is based on what is mentioned at the end of the first sentence, the lack of substance leads to books being short lived. B states substance is important for longevity. B is strongly supported by the stimulus, unlike E.
I thought C was too extreme, "no molecule will be found..." how can we know that? But what helped was eliminating the 4 incorrect answers.
Are scientific arguments different form other arguments? I noticed the conclusion provided the reason why the premise occurs. Normally in arguments the conclusion is making a claim and the premise is providing the proof, which is the opposite of this. However, I did notice the premise was a fact and the conclusion was an explanation (hypothesis). Is this how scientific arguments on the LSAT are usually written? #help
I have decided to wait as well. I applied this cycle and then started to study in October thinking I just needed a couple of months. That was stupid! I took the January flex and scored 9 points below the average of my first choice law school. Unfortunately it will be too late to improve my score for this cycle. I've decided to reapply this fall. I am older and it sucks to have to wait another year, but will be well worth it instead of going to my safety school. I will just have to make the most of this extra year. Good luck to everyone in the same boat.
I really needed to hear this. I am on the brink of taking an extra year to continue studying for the test. But I don't want to disappoint my family. Nobody in my family understands what this test is like, they assume its just like any other test and I'm just not studying hard enough and making excuses. The added pressure does not help.
Question 26 WTF was that. Are you kidding me!