Subscription pricing
Hey, I am going to be studying and prepping for the LSAT in the UCF library on the main campus for the next months. If anybody wants to join and go over PTs and drills HMU. My score range is around 155-159.
PT Questions
andreseliasurdaneta240
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
andreseliasurdaneta240
Friday, Oct 20 2023
LR is my worst section and LG is my best section. Unhappy would be an understatement.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Sunday, Sep 17 2023
I struggled a lot to make sense of this until I subbed in the variables for more common things.
1.- Andy looks more like his mom than to his dad.
Who does Andy look like more? His mom or dad? Mom winner
2.- Andy looks more like his mom than his sister.
Who looks more like their mom? Andy or his sister? Andy winner
A little more complex example similar to the one in the lesson:
1.- Red Watermelon is more related to sorghum than to other kinds of watermelon
RW 50% relation to sorghum
RW 20% relation to other kinds of watermelon
Which variable is more related to Red Watermelon? Sorghum winner.
2.- Red Watermelon is more related to sorghum than are most kinds of watermelon.
Sorghum relation to RW 50%
Sorgum relation to Non-RW 15%
Which variable is more related to sorghum? RW winner.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Thursday, Apr 13 2023
The worst part with Question #2 is that I thought, well this can't be that easy there must be a trick behind it, there is no way they slap confident, court and society in the first AC. I still fell for it damn.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Thursday, Apr 13 2023
I do not know if I am the only one, but there have been a couple times where I would read the question and then do the exact opposite of what it asks for. In this exercise, I thought for some reason that question 10 in the Korea passage was asking which of the following Must Be False based on the passage.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Thursday, Dec 07 2023
Hey, I am interested!
There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!
P: The evidence for this explosion is that 45 of the 70 active opera companies were founded in the last 30 years.
C: There has been an explosion of public interest in opera over the last three decades.
<><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The author makes this assumption.
The fact that 45 opera companies were founded = an explosion of public interest in opera.
Now, the conclusion seems a lot weaker right? If you could give an alternate explanation to why these new opera companies were founded that contradicts the idea that there has been an explosion of public interest in opera, then that weakens the conclusion, which in a NA question means it is right.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
AC B.- If denied, this weakens the argument which is correct. What if the 45 opera companies that opened did so because some other opera companies shut down? Then that shows that there has not been necessarily an explosion of public interest, but rather a replacement of opera companies in the same market.
AC D.- The premise and conclusion still stand as they have nothing to do with average audience.
AC E.- This does not have to be true for the argument to stand on its own. It could still be the case that not all 45 of the opera companies that opened. The explosion of public interest could have still happened as at least some of these opera companies opened because of an explosion in public interest for opera.
There is no explanation for this question on 7sage, so I'll just post a discussion that includes my reasoning on how I got this wrong in timed conditions and later right in BR. If anyone finds it useful, great!
RRE question.
In jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor.
Record shows that making use of headlights mandatory does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Why is it that drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than those that only use it when visibility is poor? If in any case, the record shows that making it mandatory does not reduce the number of collisions.
Sometimes repeating the stimulus in a question form that directly addresses what the gap is between the 2 statements is what helps reach the link the gap of what is missing. It is also important to do this in a confusing stimulus because you do not want to lose sight of what you are trying to reconcile.
It is also good to prephrase (try to picture the flaw in a question before moving into the ACs). In this case, because maybe what causes the collision is not necessarily the headlights and perhaps there is another factor that plays a role, and the headlights are just correlated with this.
<><><><><><><><>
AC C: I picked it but I switched to E on timed conditions (wrong decision). C sounds kind of irrelevant but in reality, it directly addresses the question stated above. Why is it that there is a difference between the drivers who use headlights at all times and those who do not? Because the former are more careful, which might explain why they get into less collisions.
AC E: This sounds good at first, but it fails to reconcile the statements. It just gives a reason to maybe why the jurisdiction implemented the law. It does not explain why those drivers that use headlights at all are less likely to be involved in a collision than those who use it when is poor.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Tuesday, Mar 05 2024
For those who need help with Q13:
13.- Weaken Bordwell position in the first two sentences. ( 2 sentences!!!!) Take note.
Bordwell response is that the musical is different and evolved from theater. So, Bordwell claims that viewers when they go see a musical expect to see a different structure from other genres of movies because of theater, and these audiences are prepared to accept it as realistic.
To weaken his position, we could show that audience in reality are not ready and do not expect to see a different structure when watching these movies.
AC A.- There is multiple problems with A.
It does not weaken
First It is a trap in multiple levels. It says things that are found in the argument and is the first AC which makes you more bias toward A. This is a bad thing. Do not fall for the first thing bias. This is bad because it diminishes your reasoning abilities toward other ACs. Do no get caught up in the first thing you see.
Second, this is a movie reviewer, so be cautious about this already.
Third, just because some movie reviewers praised a movie unrealistic elements does not mean that the movie is not realistic. The movie could still be realistic yet have some unrealistic elements (which is precisely what is stated in the argument that musicals have). Ex: Transformers is an action packed movie with some romance scenes. Is Transformers a romantic movie? No. Does it have romantic scenes? Yes. Does that make it one? No.
So this does not go against the argument. Again remember, contradicting the argument is not weakening it!
Again, when doubtful about an AC do not pick it. Skip it and move forward. (mental note)
AC C.- Correct
Focuses on the aspect which could be or has room to be flawed.
Bordwell claims that people that watched theater might expect something or some degree of realism from these musical movies while other people not necessarily.
Now C weakens and attacks directly because it states that both group of people, the ones that are familiar with this kind of movies and the ones are not, both had the same reaction and expectations from the movie, which weakens because based on Bordwell's argument these groups should have had different expectations/reactions.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Wednesday, Apr 05 2023
P: Earth's population is increasing, and it currently uses a small percentage of the water supply.
C: Shortages of water will plague unless the population trend is mistaken.
AC A: It already accounts for the population trend to be mistaken or unpredictable
AC B: Correct. The water amount required per region varies. For example, an arid region could have no water while another region could have a ton of water in lakes and rivers.
It weakens the conclusion by demonstrating that there could be or there are already water shortages even if the population trend is mistaken or not.
AC D: Too broad and general. Also, the argument talks about the near future and the word use here is "eventually". Eventually /= Near future.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Sunday, Feb 04 2024
I'd like to join! Currently testing around 160s.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Thursday, Apr 04 2024
It took me an hour to figure out what this question was saying and understand how it is correct.
Let's say we have:
Context: /X (books do not impart truth)
Conclusion: X (Actually books can impart truth)
Premise: /X (If books did not impart truth) -> Y (You could determine truth...)
The author goes to show that Y does not exist and talk about how absurd of a thing Y is (determining the truth of books in sales is absurd).
So, /Y then.
/Y (You cannot determine truth...) -> X (books can impart truth)
But wait what is necessary then? What is necessary is this: (->). The arrow that connects /X and Y or /Y and X. You need that arrow or otherwise the argument would fall apart. You need to demonstrate that X and Y are connected and that Y is actually the necessary condition for X to occur.
If the arrow does not exist then the argument collapses because the author is showing that /X is not a thing by showing that Y, which is necessary for /X, is not a thing.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Tuesday, Apr 04 2023
Question 14:
AC C. The author never expresses that the assumption of the anthropologists relied on the enhancement of scientific rigor. The author expresses that the assumption these scientists make is that these data can be obtained in an objective manner.
AC D: Correct. They were incorrect in assuming that researchers could gather data in an objective manner.
AC E: They were incorrect in assuming that dances could be studied in an objectively manner. Not the assumption that they were studied with a certain scientific rigor in contrast to other areas of ethnology
andreseliasurdaneta240
Tuesday, Apr 04 2023
P: Sample reported savings of $250 for switching to Geico
C: Most people could could save hundreds of dollars by switching to Geico (seriously I kept thinking of Geico as well)
AC A: Wrong. Yes this could potentially happen, that's the reason Geico said that most people could, not necessarily all of them.
AC B: Wrong. We are talking about switching, not holding.
AC C: Wrong. Yes you could switch to other insurance companies yet, this does not weaken the conclusion that if you switch to Geico, you could still save hundreds of dollars.
AC D: Wrong. Strengthen??
AC E: Correct. Disproportionally represented those who could switch and save because it exists the chance that maybe most of those who could save have switched already and the few left do not save.
andreseliasurdaneta240
Tuesday, Apr 04 2023
TN Ad vs. Producers Ad.
P: The Tn Ad misrepresents the what the program is like
P/SC: People who tune in likely won't stay for subsequent episodes.
C: The Tn Ad will not be as effective as the Producers Ad to attract viewers.
Why would not the Tn Ad be as effective then?
AC B: The Producers Ad does not misrepresents what the program is going to be like
andreseliasurdaneta240
Tuesday, Apr 04 2023
I struggled with this on the test and now just by inverting the order in which the premise and conclusion are introduced, makes the problem way easier.
P: The biography does not explain what made Shakespeare different from his comtemporaries.
C: Shakespeare biography does not explain what is most interesting about him.
AC E: What is most interesting about Shakespeare is what made him different from his comtemporaries
Hey! I also plan to take it on August. If you are struggling with LG, I recommend getting the LG powerscore bible (is like 200 pages max with exercises) on top of the lessons in the core curriculum by JY. Both the book and the lessons teach you essential elements to improve your timing, especially making inferences and deducing which elements cannot go in certain spots. I do not have any disability so unfortunately, I cannot help with that, but English is my second language and I sort of understand your pain.
I wish I performed as good as you in RC and LR, and many other people too, so feel encouraged to learn LG because I believe is the most learnable section of the LSAT. Good luck! I bet you can easily reach your goal if you continue this way!