Self-study
Hey guys,
I tried to find JY’s post about which watches he recommends to no avail.
I’ve read a host of discussions, but still am not sure which one is the best choice and how to use it effectively?
Thank you in advance 😌
abhariyasamin783
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
abhariyasamin783
Thursday, Dec 20, 2018
Hey Lucas,
Thank you for your response.
In essence, if E said "likely", it would make it circular reasoning and that would become the flaw. Is what I'm inferring from your answer correct?
That's what I was alluding to when I added "likely" into it to see if it would change E into the correct answer. I thought if likely were added, it would make it the correct answer choice.
I just second guessed myself about the difference between "the likeliness of a certain state of affairs – not damaging the seaside environment” not being the same as “not fearing the tourism industry”, after reading others' comments referring to this distinction!
abhariyasamin783
Thursday, Dec 20, 2018
#help Same here. Anyone care to elaborate?
I chose C because the premise is :
1) M has asked J to go on an unscheduled vacation
2) J makes the same excuse(not being able to afford an unscheduled vacation) and rejects invitations everytime M asks him to make an unscheduled vacation
Therefore, the cost cannot be the real reason for Jerome's unwillingness to go on this particular unscheduled vacation.
I understood the gap in reasoning when I approached the ACs. Just because you make the same excuse every time, doesn't mean that excuse is not granted.
If the excuse was made for a legitimate reason (not being able to afford it) and the reason still exists, one would expect the same result each and every time (rejecting the invitation, because they still couldn't afford it)
------
I chose C because I thought the flaw is overlooking the fact that J refusing the invitation is in fact because he cannot afford the unscheduled vacation, and a vacation planned in advance would allow him to not forfeit the wages by taking off unscheduled.
I guess by looking at it again and again, my reasoning doesn't address the first reason why he rejects the invitations for going on the trips, which is not being able to afford it in the first place; coupled with leaving unscheduled which leads to forfeiting additional wages.
Is this where I went wrong? Or is my reasoning flawed to begin with because it makes a further assumption than granted?
abhariyasamin783
Thursday, Dec 20, 2018
#help For E, even if it had said "people in the tourism industry would LIKELY never knowingly damage the seaside environment", thus, nothing to fear from the tourism industry, it would still be incorrect because the likeliness of a certain state of affairs - not damaging the seaside environment" is not the same as "not fearing the tourism industry", correct?
abhariyasamin783
Wednesday, Dec 19, 2018
#help
Dramamine Example:
The people who take Dramamine - an anti-sea-sickness medication- end up reporting symptoms of seasickness more often, more frequently, and severely than people who don't take it.
Does that mean Dramamine doesn't work?
No, it means people who were more prone to seasickness would have taken it, to begin with, and maybe they had their symptoms mitigated.
-------
JY then draws a comparison and say "as we see it here: 1000 cases reported is the mitigated effects of anti-virus software; so the argument overlooks the possibility that the protective measures did work".
What I fail to understand is how are these two examples the same, considering their outcomes are completely the opposite?
For Dramamine, the people who took it reported symptoms more often, more frequently and severely than people who didn't take it; how does that support the fact that it was mitigating their symptoms, thus supporting the conclusion that it was not the case that it's not effective? if anything, it could be said that it was worsening their symptoms.
On the other hand, for this question, the antivirus has worked, it has mitigated the chances of more computers being infected with the virus.
Thanks in advance :)
abhariyasamin783
Thursday, Dec 13, 2018
#help how would we know to dismiss the first sentence, as opposed to diagramming it?
Is it because of the premise (after all, if ABS did not confer such advantages, it would not be common), thus introducing the only two necessary and sufficient conditions negated, thus rendering A→B→C form incorrect?
I actually become frustrated sometimes with how JY dismisses things or refers to things as so simple when for him, it's become second nature, but for someone such as myself who is getting the hang of things, it's not so easy.
I've seen in the comments some have diagrammed it as I did which is A→B→C, A→C, which would not match AC C's form, but they just overlooked that and still chose C as it seemed the most correct.
But I want to know how would I know the determine the first sentence as context? Especially since the second sentence uses referential phrasing to refer back to the first sentence.
ABS→ CT(common trait)→ SA (survival advantages)
SA/→CT/→ABS/
-----
ABS → SA
Thank you in advance! :)
abhariyasamin783
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2018
#help I have a feeling once the curriculum was recently shuffled around, this particular question should have also been moved since it foreshadows a lesson.
I have followed the CC to the T up to this point, and I don't recall anything being mentioned about "conjunctive sufficiency"? I recall how to negate a relationship ( A and B/) or (A some B/), but that's not what JY does here.
I eliminated the answer choices to A & B just based on intuition, but I had no idea how to really diagramme this properly.
Am I correct?
abhariyasamin783
Thursday, Dec 6, 2018
#help I'm confused by this one. I've gotten all the questions in sets 1&2 right thus far, except this one.
The necessary/sufficient assumptions could be written out in lawgic in both ways at first glance, and in the comments, the necessary/sufficient assumptions have been written out both ways.
1)
Move to town/Proximity ---> L/
(if he moves into town/has proximity to people ---> he would not be lonely)
the use of the word "so" suggests L/ is the conclusion.
why he will not be lonely anymore? because if he moves to town, he will have proximity to people.
--------------------
2) then Ralph suggests only proximity is not enough, but GI is also needed.
L/---> move to town/ proximity
L/---> genuine interaction
if he wants to not be lonely anymore, he needs both proximity to people and genuine interaction.
why should he move to town and why should he need genuine interaction? to not be lonely anymore
-------
which one is correct?
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
#help I can't believe I spent 5 minutes on this question mapping and still got it wrong, while the answer was so simple!
More importantly, with the phrase " if deceit is a quality of rottenness", I read it as deceit is a quality necessary for rottenness ( D--> R)
But it could also be read as if rottenness subsumes one of its qualities, which is deceit, on top of others such as being short-tempered, which could also be a quality of rottenness. In this case, it would be (R--> D) IF you are rotten, you are deceitful.
Which one is correct and why is the other incorrect?
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
#help I know there aren't any full proof rules when it comes to these MBT and it depends on the context, but I've also started realizing this pattern.
Is it typically the case that comparative statements are trap answer choices for MBTs?
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
#help My problem with this question is equating Machine/---> only by hand, as well as equating Long Fiber/---> Short Fiber.
From my understanding from previous questions, JY always cautions against making further inferences than granted.
In this instance, if LF/, it could very easily be a medium fibre that exists of this special kind of cotton. Why does it have to equate to Short?
the same goes for Machine/--> only by hand. There could very well be other forms of this special kind of cotton bred that are Machine/ and are only by hand/.
From what I understood, all we could properly infer is if commercially feasible/→ long/ and machine sprung/.
How is it granted to make a further inference that long/ and machine sprung /→ short and only by hand?
-----
This is what tripped me up and led me to chose E unhappily, and in error.
Green and brown cotton (making a further assumption that these garments were made from the recently become commercially feasible green and brown cotton) save the cost of dyeing, therefore would lead to less expensive garments than garments made from the new non-green/brown commercially feasible cotton fibre.
----
Any help would be much appreciated :)
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
Hey Logic Gainz,
I very much appreciate the time you put into the response, no excuse is necessary!!
After thinking about this for a while, I think the reason I arrived at that inference is that I treated Jawless fish and Jawed fish as two separate sets, not one set and two sub-groups. But you are treating them as one set.
I.e.
A→B
A
B
If biting-Jaw-fish→Prey
Jaw-fish
_
Prey
----------------------------
If we treat them as one set, then I absolutely understand where I made the mistake, which as you pointed out is a mistaken negation. They are not mutually exclusive. You could be a biting-jaw-fish, and both prey upon other fish, and still feed upon particles found in the bottom mud or surface plankton.
What do you think?
--------------
As for my second concern, your answer makes sense. I think it's a bit vague for an LSAT AC, since they are typically robust. I mean it shouldn't be left to an interpretation since I could very well believe that an animal feeding off of the carcass of other animals constitutes exerting harm on that carcass, regardless of it having life or not. I understand that's a stretch based on common notions, but for the sake of the argument, it's very well plausible in my opinion.
My point is you could be an animal and solely prey on dead animals for your food source. And if the fish are dead, then they certainly lie at the bottom of the ocean, where the jawless fish sucked on the food particles of other dead fish. Thus, making AC B not necessarily true.
What do you think?
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
#help For AC B, from my understanding, Some--> All. If some Brilliant People are Legal Voters, Professors and under eighteen, then ALL Brilliant People are Legal Voters, Professors, and under eighteen.
Is this AC incorrect, because it could be true, but not must be true?
----
And for AC C, it is incorrect because it's an invalid inference, correct?
As in A some B, A some C, therefore B some C?
or is it because the answer is different than a valid inference must be true:
A--> B/
A-->C/
------
B/ some C/
And AC C says (B some /C)
abhariyasamin783
Tuesday, Dec 4, 2018
#help I narrowed it down to B and C quickly.
I chose C.
My reasoning was all fish who were jawless fed upon food particles and surface plankton.
Then they evolved to have jaws and their food source changed. They now pursued prey. Teleosts have jaws. Therefore, they prey on other fish.
Jawless fish --> fed upon particles found in the bottom mud
Biting-jawed-fish ---> not/ fed upon particles found in the bottom mud, because they were now pursuing prey/seizing/chewing.
----
I also eliminated B because it asked us to equate sucking in food particles with not/preying on other fish. But how would be so sure to know that the food particles were not of dead fish?
----
Can anyone help me understand why my reasoning was an invalid inference?
abhariyasamin783
Friday, Nov 30, 2018
#help I actually only eliminated A and went for B instead, specifically because of the term "not decrease substantially", and didn't catch the implications of the price remaining constant under timed conditions.
What I can't understand is if "not decrease substantially" could mean the demand could remain constant, and the supply went down because of the ceiling, how can we be sure the price would increase?
I agree this requires outside knowledge!
abhariyasamin783
Friday, Nov 9, 2018
#help I chose the correct answer, but I got caught up on B, because I thought it could be a competing explanation for this causal theory.
I translated it as, because many of the patients had not taken a beta-2 agonist -which is what Asthmagon is-, their adverse side effects were as a result of them being introduced to the beta-2 agonist for the first time, and not this particular drug(so it’s not this particular drug’s fault in simple terms). Hence, it should not be banned.
Is it incorrect because I made a further assumption than granted?
Hey Lucas,
Thank you for the elaboration.
I understand where you are coming from. I think what confuses me is JY uses the term "more" than those who didn't, hence drawing a comparison and the result of that comparison (two groups, one takes medication, one doesn't and the one that does is worse off than the other) is counterintuitive to me.
If I understand this correctly, even though those who took Dramamine reported symptoms more often, more frequent, and more severe symptoms than people who didn't take it, it doesn't mean Dramamine didn't work, because it could be that had they not taken it, their symptoms would have been (more) more often, more(more) frequent, and more(more) severe?
I apologize for the grammatical error in advance, but I couldn't find a superlative that would solidify my understanding here.