Subscription pricing
What was that "flip of a switch" moment or piece of advice that dramatically changed your perspective of the LSAT or of how you go about your LSAT study?
PT Questions
angelaavonce132
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
angelaavonce132
Tuesday, Oct 29 2024
The last answer choice (F) that could be an answer choice if LSAC wanted to make this question more difficult, what valid argument form is J.Y. referring to? Is it related to valid argument form #6 (Two Split Mosts)?
Since we know that:
all implies most, and most implies some;
and two split mosts implies some.
So, we can conclude that two split alls also implies some.
Is this correct?
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Feb 27
I agree that a separate letter from each of them may be redundant and overall less effective for your application. Although generally this may not be recommended/is uncommon, I think it makes sense given your specific context for them to write a jointly signed letter! Since you work very closely with them, at a small firm, and since they are partners at the firm & partners in their relationship! Just note that/as an FYI, when you submit a request on LSAC, you will only fill out the name & contact information for one of them, not both. Only one of your recommenders will receive an email from LSAC inviting them to submit the recommendation. However, if you want to clearly communicate that it is a joint letter, then the actual letter can be signed by both of them and contain both of their contact information.
Although you've graduated in 2021, law schools strongly recommend letters of recommendation from your professors. I recommend reaching out to your professors to catch up (even if it's over the phone or Zoom), updating them about your law school plans, and asking if they'd be able to write you a strong recommendation. You can offer to provide them a "tip sheet" of information that you think would be helpful for them to reference as they prepare their letter---sort of like refreshing their memory and encouraging them to highlight specific points. Admissions officers even recommend that you do this for your recommenders. I think your professors would be more willing to write the letter too.
Here's a tip sheet I found online: https://admissions.law.yale.edu/apply/LOR_Tip_Sheet.pdf
I'm sure there are others too; I just found this one very helpful! Wishing you the very best!
angelaavonce132
Edited Thursday, Sep 11
Hi! Would this flaw be considered a hasty generalization? Also, I'm wondering would this flaw be considered an example of the invalid argument form: "All Before Some"? https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/formal-logic-flaws/all-before-some
angelaavonce132
Friday, Apr 25
Similar question to practice: 149-1-18.
It is a MBT question, but it requires similar reasoning to get to the correct AC. The stimulus provides two conditional statements that aren't explicitly related, but you can draw a reasonable inference about their relationship, which then allows you to draw the contrapositive and infer a relationship that MBT.
Add to this thread if you find examples of other questions that use a similar reasoning!
angelaavonce132
Friday, Jan 24
Is this question an example of the following?:
Correlation in the stimulus, which is at least some evidence of causation.
(But does NOT PROVE/GUARANTEE causation.) Sometimes there is a stimulus that requires us to recognize that correlation is evidence of cause. And then depending on whether you’re able to control for other factors, it becomes more likely that correlation really is strong evidence of cause.
Curious to hear what y'all think!
angelaavonce132
Tuesday, Apr 22
Does anyone know of any other questions that use logic similar to this question? I'd find it helpful if there are any other examples I can use to practice this MBT question re. percentages & averages.
angelaavonce132
Sunday, Sep 22 2024
Shouldn't this question have a "Sampling" tag? #feedback
angelaavonce132
Monday, Apr 21
Another MSS question relating to correlation implying causation: 141-4-8.
angelaavonce132
Monday, Apr 21
I chose A over E because I thought that A was describing the flaw in the reasoning---how the premises failed to support the conclusion; so the emphasis was on the relationship between P & C. vs. E was an attempt to propose an alternative explanation (therefore attacking the conclusion), but ultimately is still consistent with the conclusion being true.
To distinguish between ACs, I ask, how does this AC relate to the premises---specifically regarding how the premises do not guarantee support for the conclusion.
angelaavonce132
Saturday, Sep 21 2024
Hi! Could someone please help me understand this question? I'd also appreciate any feedback on my approach. #help
I noticed that this was a sufficient-necessity flaw (with some causal reasoning underlying the argument), so I went hunting in the ACs for an AC that said the argument confused the sufficient condition for a necessary condition. I was between B and D and chose D. I didn't consider E, I eliminated it right away.
Question #1: I'm struggling to understand why E is correct. Why is it a flaw that there are other possible causes? Is this because the stimulus uses "most" in the conclusion?
I interpreted/read E) as assuming that the conclusion is true BUT there are other causes that the argument didn't consider. To me, that is a weakness and not inherently a flaw? And, I thought that for flaw questions we should never concede that the conclusion is true. So, I didn't pay attention to E for these reasons. Thoughts?
Q #2: Thoughts on how I mapped out the stimulus? Did I map it out incorrectly or is this approach correct? I mapped out the stimulus differently from J.Y. I get confused when I see 1 chain with arrows in different directions, so I struggled to understand that from the video. Here's how I mapped out the stimulus:
domain: approaching strangers
~age → comfortable (likely)
Thus: MOST LTF begin bc comfortable → LTF ~age (probably)
SC/NC confusion ... assumes the NC is true/conclusion.
Question #3: After getting this question wrong, I re-read E. I mapped E) out as a sort of contrapositive of the stimulus' conclusion -- is this interpretation incorrect? Here are my notes:
/~age → /comfortable
Q #3.1: Could the correct AC for a sufficiency-necessary confusion flaw be the contrapositive of the stimulus' flawed conclusion (instead of a corrected conclusion)?
Thank you in advance for your guidance!
angelaavonce132
Sunday, Oct 20 2024
I couldn't identify the flaw type beforehand, but my pre-phrase was: there can be multiple necessary conditions to achieve this effect, the conclusion assumes that there is only one way. Vigorous exercise is just ONE of the ways one can lower one's chances of developing certain cardio-respiratory illnesses. So, the older studies proposing an alternative method (nonstrenuous walking) to achieve the same health benefits can also be valid; just because it's different doesn't mean that it is definitely wrong.
Thoughts?
angelaavonce132
Sunday, Oct 20 2024
Hi, I understand why C) is correct. I don't fully understand why A) is incorrect. Could someone help me understand? I thought A) could potentially weaken the argument because this would mean that the study wasn't done properly, and if it's a flawed study, we can't make such a strong conclusion.
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Apr 17
J.Y. mentioned that there is a question that uses similar subject matter & logic in another PT. Does anyone know which PT & question that is?
angelaavonce132
Wednesday, Oct 09 2024
My takeaways from this question:
Understand what claims are made in the stimulus that are used as evidence for the argument. Recognize that these claims may make an underlying assumption, find it and make it explicit in your mind. Given the reasoning made in the stimulus, approach the ACs with a targeted mission to make that specific assumption more concrete/close the gap/answer any questions/potential rebuttals. The correct AC deepens/confirms/extends that hidden assumption with related, new evidence that makes me more likely to believe in the reasoning from the stimulus (i.e., more likely to understand/see how the premises support the conclusion).
Here, the stimulus' conclusion is that: hey we don't strongly believe that this guy was a bad guy. The reasoning? The stimulus makes claims about the existing evidence---(1) the quantity and (2) the quality.
(1) Quantity: there isn't much documentation. Underlying assumption: when there's little evidence, we're less likely to believe (or strongly believe) in a conclusion (here the modern historians are challenging the traditional view). Ok, simple enough reasoning. I don't see any gaps with this or rebuttals I'd need to address, so I'm not going to focus on ACs that talk about the amount of the evidence.
(2) Quality: out of what little documentation we do have, these documents were written by his enemies. Underlying assumption: how can we trust these documents? The enemies were probably biased and the documentation is not true, or at least suspicious/questionable. Ok, this reasoning regarding the quality of the nature of the evidence has room to be strengthened; it isn't as straightforward/tight reasoning compared to the first premise. Can we deepen the suspicion about the quality of the evidence? Can we find an AC that---if true---would make us at least 1% more likely for us to want to challenge the traditional view?
The correct AC subtly strengthens the argument. Here, POE is the best way to arrive at the correct AC. This correct AC both (1) relates to the underlying assumption made in the stimulus (his enemies are biased and we can't fully trust the quality of the documentation), and (2) provides related, yet different evidence that deepens this reasoning, therefore making us more likely to believe in the conclusion (we have doubts that this guy was a bad guy; we can't be so confident in saying he was a tyrant). This correct AC gives us another reason to doubt the traditional view. The correct AC makes the enemies "evidence" even more suspicious, and that's all that we really have to do here--just make the argument 1% stronger.
I'm struggling to confidently categorize this correct AC, but I'm thinking that this AC strengthens the argument by providing circumstantial/corroborating evidence?
Thoughts? I appreciate any feedback/commentary!
angelaavonce132
Tuesday, Apr 08
One takeaway I had from this passage is paying attention to when the author describes necessary conditions and necessary assumptions. Even just noting a "NC" in my LRS made a huge difference for me to refer back to it when answering questions.
Recognizing the necessary conditions/necessary assumptions in this passage can help answer some questions, especially #17 and #21.
(1) Describes a necessary condition for TE.
"Theoretical equipoise exists only when the overall evidence for each of the two treatment regimens is judged by each clinical researcher to be exactly balanced---an ideal hardly attainable in practice." Meaning, a requirement for TE is that clinical researchers judges both treatments as balanced.
TE → balanced judgment
(2) Describes a necessary assumption for CE & the author's argument. (I anticipated this point might come up in a Weaken question & it did in #21!). I got 4/8 questions wrong on this passage (!!), but surprisingly got #21 right & within 10 seconds of the target time.
"The very absence of consensus within the expert clinical community is what makes clinical equipoise possible." No clear logical indicators here, but the simple interpretation of this sentence is describing a requirement that the author depends for their argument. Meaning, CE requires absence of consensus.
#17
(D): first half of this AC: describes that the necessary condition failed, so the argument is destroyed, or, using the phrase from the question stem, TE is "jeopardized."
/balanced judgment → /TE.
second half: the necessary condition is intact, so the argument is not impacted by this statement; CE still stands.
regarding trap AC (A): you can eliminate this AC because the scenario described does not match the explicit conditions laid out in the passage. This AC uses a lot of words, but it's a distraction. (A) doesn't deliver clear consequences based on the scenario from the passage. It does not deliver consequences that the argument cares about.
#21
(A) This negates the author's necessary assumption, effectively weakening the author's argument. Necessary assumption negated: "It is not the case that comparative clinical trials require the absence of consensus." This AC means that comparative clinical trials do not require the absence of consensus; instead, comparative clinical trials are conducted for the purpose of confirming consensus by proving that the consensus is correct.
Although this AC does not explicitly mention clinical equipoise, the consequence of this AC relates to the author's argument, given the inferences that we can draw (from paras 3 & 4) about the relationship between comparative clinical trials and clinical equipoise.
Thoughts? Have you observed this or used this strategy for other passages? If this is a pattern and solid approach to RC passages, I think it would be interesting to see a compilation and application of this approach in a live class.
angelaavonce132
Sunday, Sep 08 2024
Drill! I jumped from a 157 to 168 in the span of 2-3 weeks because of going through the curriculum and drilling! I was super surprised by my jump but it's definitely possible! Drilling and reflection is essential to progress in my opinion!
angelaavonce132
Monday, Apr 07
Below is a list of Strengthen questions in which the correct AC is one that strengthens the argument by describing a causal mechanism.
This could be an AC that provides a (1) detailed causal chain or (2) provides an additional causal mechanism in which the conclusion can be reached.
134-3-17
141-4-20
147-1-10
147-4-14
If you come across any others, add them to this comment thread! :)
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Sep 05 2024
Should this question have a "value judgment" tag? #feedback
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Sep 05 2024
What helped me find the right AC was thinking about "net effect." So what if it's true that the patients who use these alternative medicines might not be harmed and even maybe helped by these alternative medicines? Even if this is true, why wouldn't I NOT want to allow people to ALWAYS prescribe these alternative medicines? Well, what if it's true that when people take these alternative medicines, they are NOT taking other medicines that could be more effective. Then, the net effect is that people are not taking the most effective medicine that they can, and so they are being harmed. The premises from the stimulus are still true --- the alternative medicine is not DIRECTLY harming the people taking it, BUT rather it is indirectly harming people because they aren't taking something else that is effectively better (given that AC (A) is true).
angelaavonce132
Edited Wednesday, Sep 10
The questions that J.Y. mentions in his video are:
https://7sage.com/discussion/3079/pt125-s2-q24-there-are-1-3-billion-cows-worldwide (cows & methane)
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-10/ (pollution & walking/cars)
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Sep 05 2024
This question type should have the "net effect" tag. #feedback
angelaavonce132
Tuesday, Sep 03 2024
I was down to AC A and E (ultimately chose E). I immediately eliminated C because it used "soon" and I thought that language was too strong & unwarranted (similar approach to how I eliminate some necessary assumption questions). Do you think this is not a good approach to take for flaw questions?
angelaavonce132
Thursday, Oct 03 2024
My understanding why C is wrong:
Who cares if it is not the “most balanced” compromise? It doesn’t help the argument. The correct AC will be creating a bridge from the premise(s) to the conclusion. Be mindful of unnecessary modifiers to main ideas (here being “compromise”) in the stimulus. These modifiers can be distracting details and don’t help the argument!
angelaavonce132
Tuesday, Oct 01 2024
Hi! I love the positive comments energy---I feel that!
My general 2 cents:
168 is such a specific score, I don't think you can (or should try to) predict that. Also, attaching an expectation to a specific score can lead to stress (& negative energy we don't want) that could affect your performance. So I suggest reframing your goals to have a range of a score. I think mid-high 160s is definitely possible! I think it depends on how much quality time you have to study each day, and your study approach (working smart, not hard). If you work too hard, but aren't working smart (efficiently) then you risk burning yourself out.
My more practical tips:
Have you gone through the RC curriculum? It helped me a ton!! I went from a 157 (PT 147) (-12 RC) to a 168 (PT 154) (-3 RC) in ~3 weeks by: (1) finishing the RC curriculum & (2) drilling 1-3 RC passages almost every day and thoroughly reviewing each one (explanation videos & comments). This helped me with (1) getting comfortable with RC passage types and questions (the LSAT's vibe & tricks to writing RC material), (2) habitualizing the approach to RC laid out in the core curriculum (I wanted this to become second nature to me), & (3) breaking my personal bad habits of indecision and taking too long on questions so that I ran out of time on the later passages & lost potential easy points. I also attended/watched some live classes for RC, but did that really at the end and say this was extra help, but bulk of my growth was from what I mentioned earlier.
Even you don't have a lot of time to study, what I've found effective is taking a bite size approach to practicing. I recommend doing speed drills every day: ~10 minutes for 10 LR questions & 1 RC passage at a pace that works for you & would also work on the timed exam. You may not be able to meet your speed goals right away; that's okay & relatable! Just set a timer for 10 min & a stopwatch on your phone and do the first 10, & make a note how long it took you & the date, & you'll see your timing improve over time. Same for RC. Once you are close to your RC timing goals, complete the 1st 2 passages from a section at a time. Then work your way up to a full timed RC section.
Avoid the temptation of taking a practice test too early! Give yourself flexibility to push back when you plan to take a PT, even if that means you take less PTs than you wanted to before Nov. If you take a PT too early (before you're prepared), & you don't progress in your scoring, you may feel discouraged & even more stressed. I recommend approaching each new practice test with a new mini-size goal (or strategy) you want to implement/achieve, after you've already made progress towards achieving it in some form (in speed drills and/or individual timed sections). For ex., in this next PT, I plan to finish the first 10 questions in 10 min", "complete the first 2 RC passages in X minutes", "complete a full RC/LR section on time", "prephrase the correct answer before reading the answer choices" etc.
Use the more recent PTs for your timed PTs/timed sections. This will give you more realistic scores.
I've found that the most important part is reviewing after practicing. In my opinion, it's a waste to practice if you aren't having a takeaway from every question you do (it can be a huge takeaway or a really small one). But there should always be a bigger point from just completing the question. And you get those takeaways by reviewing thoroughly. The LSAT is so specific to each person, that reflecting on your habits is so important for growth! I think people tend to "over practice" and not reflect enough, and they end up not scoring at their potential because they haven't done a thorough check in with themselves.
Wishing you the best of luck!! You got this!
Although I got this question right, I was less confident about this question because I noticed in the stimulus that the first premise contains "would require." Versus the ACs contained "should." Now I realized that this different doesn't really matter & is rather surface-level, because both terms signify that they are general principles that the argument is basing it's reasoning on. What matters it that (1) a general principle exists in the premises (which can manifest in the form of "would require" and/or "should") and that (2) the conclusion is a prescriptive conclusion that contains "should."