Discussions

User Avatar
andlsat909131
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
LSAT · PT65.S4.Q26 - because our club recruited the best volleyball players
User Avatar
andlsat909131
Thursday, Aug 25 2016

Thank you! I wasn't quite familiar with the lottery flaw, so this indeed threw me off guard.

@, I have another question if you don't mind, are the statements: "It's most likely going to rain today" same as "It's almost certainly going to rain today"?

0

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding why B is incorrect, and why E is the correct answer.

So originally when going over the stimulus I only found one flaw in the stimulus: The individual players don't tell us about the quality of the team (Parts doesn't equal the whole)

And, I assumed "B" was the correct answer since it kind of described the flaw. "features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity", I guess the features are relevant, but I assumed that those features are not relevant to the overall quality of that entity. Meaning the individual parts can't give us any detail of the quality of the whole.

I don't understand how "E" is the correct answer. Best team most likely to win -> Our club will almost certainly be city champions.....Okay...they have the same transitional conditions...what's wrong here?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-26/

0
General · [Ended] Post LSAT Live Lightning Consultations—Wed, Sept. 28th @ 9 pm EST
User Avatar
andlsat909131
Wednesday, Sep 21 2016

1.) 25/M. Graduated from University of California with Magna Cum Laude. I was born and raised in California. I aspire to work in/for the government, hopefully in the court.

2.) I think my biggest worry is finding the right topic for my personal statement for law school. Additionally, I worry about my gap years, of not having a traditional job post-grad. I don't know if Admissions would like the fact I worked as a private tutor for some years.

3.) I don't really have specific topics yet. I'll decide in a few days and edit it here.

Edit:

A.) I was thinking about writing my PS on how I became passionate about Social Justice and interested in law school in general.

B.) Another topic is summarizing/narrating my academic career, where I performed poorly in high school, had to go to community college made a 180 degree change in my life and graduated in the top of my class.

4.) No/No.

0
User Avatar
•

Sunday, Sep 18 2016

andlsat909131

PT31.S3.Q21 - so-called "engineering foods"

The conclusion here is that: Athletes who need to improve muscle strength should not use the engineered food.

Premises: Hormones produce growth in connective tissues rather than in muscle mass, which does not improve muscular strength

So, I was stuck between answer choices "A" and "C"

I tried the negation test and thought without both of them the argument falls apart.

I chose "A" because "C" was too strong and thought it was an sufficient assumption.

I'm having a hard time eliminating "A" because, I'm assuming if muscle mass does not increase strength, the premises of the argument falls apart and thus breaks the conclusion.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-3-question-21/

0
General · Is your account expiring near/before the September LSAT?
User Avatar
andlsat909131
Wednesday, Sep 14 2016

Hey @ ,

I sent an email earlier today, don't know if you read it, but could you extend my account as well? Sept. will be my last LSAT. Thanks so much in advance.

0
LSAT · PT68.S2.Q24 - studies have found that human tears
User Avatar
andlsat909131
Friday, Sep 09 2016

@

Hey thanks for responding. I chose "C" because I thought it matched the flaw here. I should have noticed the causation flaw between stress and hormones, but I thought the flaw in the conclusion between crying and hormones was the most prominent one. And I assumed, "C" matched with that. I was between "E" and "C", but again, the causation flaw between stress and hormones was marginalized by the causation flaw between hormones and crying so I eliminated "E".

0

The conclusion here is that "crying must have the effect of reducing emotional stress".

The first time I read the stimulus I thought the flaw/gap here was; we are not sure that crying itself decreases stress, maybe the hormones causes the person to cry to reduce stress.

So I chose "C", because I assumed the answer choice stated: that the stimulus failed to address if the hormones led to decrease of stress by crying, or crying led to the decrease of stress by removing hormones.

Isn't that another legitimate flaw here?

I could see how "E" is right, how the argument confused that hormones might be the cause of the stress, rather than a response to stress...but that was way out of my radar.

How do I make sure I don't make these mistakes again?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?