- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I can weaken A by saying that those dead mosquitos that were found after the test were already dead prior the test even taking place. A big, and unreasonable assumption on the LSAC's part.
Hi everyone,
I've been studying for almost a year and I have put in a lot of hours but I'm not making any more progress than I already have, especially in LR and RC. My diagnostic score was a 141, my personal best is a 155, and my goal is a 165.
Does anyone have any tips or recommendations to improve my LR score? It's getting very discouraging to invest so much time and money into this test and not get the score I want after so long.
I've done nearly the entire core curriculum and hundreds of problem sets in drills but it's not translating on actual prep tests and I'm very nervous to not get the score I want for when I take the test in April and June.
Any bit of help is greatly appreciated, even just saying what your strategy is for each question stem if it's different compared to what I do or what JY does.
Thanks!
Same here, I thought her conceding a point would eliminate "fundamental rejection"
lmao the way I eliminated A was because I thought to myself "well maybe Jeff is paralyzed and he can't jump at all"
I thought Rosati was a painting and not a person so I didn't catch the flaw because of that. And the last sentence of the stimulus where it states "reproduction of the painting." I thought it was referring to Rosati.
Of course! The LSAT makes a fair use of that phrase so I would get very comfortable with it and google lsat questions that use that phrasing.
Another example of that phrase is something like "cheetahs are the fastest land animals in the world. However, flacons are the fastest animal in the entire world. Therefore, the latter would be the former in a race".
Shitty argument I know but that's just a basic example.
The former are cheetahs since they are mentioned first, falcons are the latter because they are mentioned second.
Hope that helps!
The latter is the second item in the answer choice (physical pleasures). The former is the first thing in the answer choice (intellectual stimulation.
The former normally means the first item mentioned and the latter means the second item mentioned.
I thought the same thing about B, how do we know the financial magazine as apart of "most magazines" and "other surveys"? I thought B, C, and E were all irrelevant so it was hard choosing between those 3
no way people are just glossing over the fact he just yelled "surprise motherfuckers"
I know this is pretty late but I'll give it a shot. D is wrong for the same reason why B is wrong. They both have sufficiency/ necessity confusion which doesn't match the logic in the stimulus.
The reason why I thought D was wrong, and I still do, is that we don't know the level of expertise is for any of the 20,000 people who signed the petition and you would have to assume that they are not experts. For all we know the 20,000 people are the best experts in the world.
I chose B, and still think it is correct, because the author never says that alternative approach of sand-capped pits is even a good option. Why should we believe it is a good option?
I still don't understand why A is wrong. Can someone please offer a different explanation? #Help
I disagree with JY on his reasoning for why A and C are wrong. I also wasn't a fan of his first diagram. This is how I wrote mine:
TG→ O AND F
Contrapositive: /O or /F → /TG
A is wrong because it only mentions one of those to statements (far reaching influence).
C is wrong because it confuses necessity for sufficiency. It indeed as both O and F, but it is written as O and F → TG which is completely wrong.
This is how I understood this problem and got it right. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hello! I actually think your reasoning and analysis is very good. Had this been a flaw question you would had have been spot on because this argument overlooks other possible methods of saving the animals from extinction and you pointed out a few methods.
The reason why E is wrong is because the author isn't arguing that it is okay to find a new habitat, but rather we should move them to a new place. The description of the conclusion in answer choice E isn't 1. strong enough to justify the author's argument and 2. isn't even describing what the author is arguing.
I also don't think the wording in answer choice C is too strong but rather exactly what we need to justify the argument. The author mentions that the ONLY way of saving the animals is to move them from their current island to the neighboring one. So answer choice C saying "whatever is most likely to prevent the extinction should be undertaken" accounts for the author saying that there is only one single way of saving these animals.
Hope that helps and fuck the LSAT!