- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Jan - 160
June - 159
Planning on taking it again (not sure when) as both scores were below my average (168).
Should I keep or cancel the June score? Planning on keeping it since its within margin of error but don't want to regret it - will it hurt me?
It's an implied assumption, so you won't find it within the stimulus. Because if you negate AC E, then you're saying that the professors are willing to write in simplified language - but by their willingness, that wrecks the argument because then there is no special place for outsiders of Academia (why would there be, if professors are willing to write in more simple language, they'd bypass the outsiders).
The flaw is that just because the one audit did not find an instance of tax avoidance does not mean that there is no instance of tax avoidance.
For example, another firm could audit the same records and then possibly find an instance of tax avoidance.
Agree. "Complete Reliance" threw me off, but the other ACs did not match so A looked like the best AC
Me too but through POE I was able to confidently cross out the other ACs, which in turn led me to B
I chose D. Below is my reasoning.
Premise: most people who have pets are less happy THAN most people who do not
Conclusion: any person who wants to be as happy as possible should not consider having a pet
When looking at the AC, I look for one that weakens the support between the Premise and Conclusion - an AC that could possibly plant a reasonable seed of doubt in my mind about the AC.
A - Incorrect because this AC just says that some people with pets are happier than others who do do not - this doesn't mean that a person is as happy as possible with a pet, just that some are happier than those who do not have a pet, they still could not be as happy as possible.
B - Incorrect - happiness =/= wishing and so what? Also, reading this AC chose leads me to think that it could, if anything, strengthen the argument.
C - Incorrect - so what if people with pets are reasonably happy? That doesn't mean that they're the happiest they can be.
D - Correct - I looked at this and thought that this AC weaken the stimulus. Why? Because if people who have pets are feel happier than that leaves the possibility that these people could be as happy as possible with a pet - something that that stimulus tries to disprove.
E - Incorrect - so what? Doe that mean a pet will make them happier? Can't make that assumption.
He mentions that we should not pick an AC that directly attacks the premise because often it is wrong. The LSAT is usually more interested in accepting the premise and conclusion, and just finding an AC that, if added to the stimulus, questions the relationship. However, as he mentions in this video, rarely there could be an AC that directly contradicts the premise and is correct.
Honestly, I think that happens when one of the AC does not pop out to you. You probably would choose that AC (the one that contradicts the premise) through process of elimination.
^^