- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
So, I approached it a bit differently and I’m not sure if this is still valid. I wrote: If self-sustaining → 250+ → not current habitat.
I still arrived at the same conclusion, since negating "current habitat" is logically equivalent to "acquiring a larger habitat." "Acquiring a larger habitat" could mean expanding the existing one—making it different from its current state—or it could mean moving to a completely separate habitat that still meets the 250+ requirement. Does that interpretation also hold up or is this exam just making me lose my mind?
I’m gradually grasping several crucial concepts and developing my intuition. Even when I make mistakes, I identify my errors and comprehend the concepts well and in less time.
However, I’m having a large problem: I’m unsure whether it’s more advantageous to read the stimulus first or the question stem. I’ve seen varying opinions, with some suggesting that reading the stimulus first is better, while others promote the opposite approach. What do you guys do, and what are the benefits of doing that approach for you?
"The only obstacle" safeguards all assumptions in regard to finance, ability to buy, etc. So when E rolls around and kills the only obstacle in Morris becoming majority owner, it supports the conclusion.
"An impossible scenario" is huge here tbh. LSAT writers know very well that you're not supposed to use outside knowledge, so they added that in order to cover the basis and not expect you to make the assumption that the two are incompatible concepts.
"then it is required that it is assumed these trees would be planted INSTEAD of native grasses." I looked at my screen like you discovered fire.
I did the EXACT same thing and ran to the comments when I got it wrong hoping I wasn't alone.
this one was brutal