hi! would love to chat about LSAT journeys, confusing LR questions, + more! feel free to send a msg ~
stimulus can be organized as so:
some counterfeit cash involves precise copying of pics on real cash
therefore, to prevent counterfeit cash, it must be difficult to precisely copy the pics on real cash.
/counterfeit cash -> /measure accurately
really, we only get one sentence (the conclusion) that we are able to work upon. the first sentence acts as context.
AC B is correct because it says:
if there is precise copying of pics on counterfeit cash, it is enough to act as a counterfeit cash.
measure accurately -> counterfeit cash
it is a contrapositive of the conclusion, which allows the conclusion to follow!
the key to understanding this question was really parsing through AC B and understanding that:
"no further impediment" = no further barriers aka nothing else is holding it back from being counterfeit cash
hope this helps ~
omg misread last sentence !! "any two people who do NOT dislike each other " to just dislike... sadness
C is more like claiming that the coach says since the professionals are doing this, our team is reasonable to do this as well. HOWEVER, this is not what happens in the stimulus. Rather, the coach uses the reference of the professionals to make a claim that his team is not acting unprofessionally/rudely because professionals are even more enthusiastic. There is a comparison being made and not an application of "oh they did this so we can do this too".
i was so stumped on why I got this question wrong but after a while.. I realized that it was a grammatical problem!
i read "either a natural gas-fired plant or a waste-to-energy plant that would serve as both a trash incinerator and a power plant." as:
BOTH natural gas-fired plant AND waste-to-energy plant would have the functions to serve as a trash incinerator and a power plant.
but it is to be understood as:
natural gas-fired plant OR waste-to-energy plant (that would serve as both a trash incinerator and a power plant)
that's why C is the correct answer because even though the waste-to-energy plant produces x3 more air pollution, it could replace the existing trash incinerator (since it's one of it's functions- assuming that the natural gas-fired plant CANNOT).
rahhh hope this helps someone!!!!
@BelovedAlmond
hello! A is wrong because we know from lawgic that if:
A-> B
A-> C
-- B -s->C
In this question, we can draw the conclusion that there is a some relationship between original ideas (B) and influential art (C).
To answer your questions,
No, it is not possible to conclude that some art can be influential and not original. That would look like:
influential -s-> /original OR
original -s-> /influential
It is not logically possible to come to this conclusion from what is provided in the stimulus.
What you mentioned, "Art cannot be great without being both influential AND original. right?" is diagrammed like this:
great art -> influential + original
which is not what the stimulus says. this is a conjunction relationship stating that it is necessary to be influential AND original to be great art. the stimulus merely states that they separately necessitate great art.
hope this helps!
i think during the take, i just had beef with the fact that it went from professors of biology to biologists, rather than professors of biology who do research.
but under further review, I see that we are trying to attack the assumption that research is positively related to your chances at an admin position. whether you're a biologist or professor biology who does research- you both do research.
AC B shows that someone who does do research actually doesn't have a better chance at the admin position, which directly attacks the assumption!
@patrique Hi patrique! From what I've learned about the LSAT so far, you are supposed to take everything presented in the stimulus as fact and try not to include any outside assumptions. Here's how I approached this question:
In this particular case, we don't know how the vaccine is supposed to prevent infection, but we do know that the argument is presenting a discrepancy in that both the experimental group and control group exhibited symptoms. I don't know if vaccinations are supposed to prevent symptoms or not- but the structure of the argument presents this phenomenon as a discrepancy that has to be solved. Additionally, we are provided with the fact that the vaccine did prevent infection from the virus after it was prescribed.
From this information, we have to try to explain how it is possible that both groups exhibited symptoms.
AC D does a good job resolving this by explaining that those who received the vaccination were already previously infected.
It explains how their group exhibited symptoms (when they supposedly should not have)- because they were previously infected already before the vaccination. According to the first sentence, the symptoms appear 60 days after they were infected. They could have been affected on Jan 1, gotten the vaccine on 3/1 and then noticed symptoms on 3/2.
It does not contradict or clash with the statement that the vaccination is completely effective in preventing infection. We don't know about the vaccination's effect on those who were already infected. It only makes a statement about preventing the infection post vaccination.
hope this helps! lmk if there's anything else i can clarify ~
hi alex !! congratulations on the W !!
Would love to join your discord, do you mind sending a fresh link? the old one expired! :)
@MichaelWright
hi Michael, this video was so amazing !!!! it was eye-opening to hear you draw the distinction between the different targeted ways to improve on content and execution skills and it has definitely changed the way I view my BR score. the tangible suggestions are also something i will definitely include in my prep!
thank you for taking the time to respond!
@PhoebeHopp
hi Phoebe, thank you so much for the advice!! having a game plan for specific question types is definitely something i'm going to implement into my prep! :) thank you for taking the time to respond!
@haena
hi haena! thank you so much for the in-depth response and the great insight<3 i will definitely start implementing BR into my drills (i have not been doing that :o ) and hopefully see where the underlying problems are :') good luck to you as well, we got this !!
@yesterdayseeker
for BR, I was only reviewing the ones that have been marked as incorrect or skipped! I probably wouldn't recommend a retake of the whole thing, but personally I'm going to start turning off the "incorrect" option in BR and plan on purely spending BR on questions that I flagged or skipped~
hi! as someone who also listens to music while studying for the lsat, right now this is what i'm doing:
untimed drills : music
reading/review: music
timed drills : no music
pt/sections: no music
(this is purely lofi/instrumental beats with no lyrics)
i find that the music also helps me focus (and just makes the studying a little more enjoyable) and i try to use it to further motivate my brain to enjoy the LSAT during casual settings. i also view it as a created tiny distraction that i force my brain to work through so that when i'm under pressured situations with no music, hypothetically the lack of distraction should make it easier.
i haven't really seen a noticeable difference in my performance between the different situations, but i do notice that my focus is improving during pressured situations. what type of music are you listening to when you study and how have you seen music affect your performance (if at all)?
hi friends wondering if anyone has any tips or advice on closing the gap between your score and blind review? feels like when i have unlimited time, i'm able to find my way to the correct answer but hoping for advice to help me perform as well during the real thing!
thank you in advance ☺
my math is so bad but here's my best attempt!
Censor 1:
50% submitted = not approved
Censor 2:
25% submitted = not approved
Both censor 1 and 2 approved the same number of manuscripts.
Let's assume the same number of total approved manuscripts was 15.
Censor 1:
15 (50%) not approved + 15 approved (50%)
total submitted: 30
Censor 2:
X (25%) not approved + 15 approved (75%)
do some math and realize that X = 5
total submitted: 20
Answer C is correct! More manuscripts were submitted to the first than second censor~ (30 vs 20)
RRE question!
Did poe on everything until A and C. What ultimately helped me eliminate A was remembering that the phenomenon that needs to be explained is particularly about why warblers maintained a pattern of cooperative breeding. We know from the stimulus that cooperative breeding RESULTS from a scarcity of nesting territory. Taking answer A, even if the warblers had reached breeding age, it doesn't explain why they still were not breeding themselves and staying home to care for their siblings.
Answer C is correct because it addresses the ultimate problem that is causing the warblers to practice cooperate breeding. In the stimulus, it might've been because of the competition causing the scarcity. Answer C offers that the environment was not right to build nests. Both of these answers sufficiently lead to a scarcity of qualifying nesting territory.
yahoo!
Weaken question- find an answer that will weaken the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
stimulus:
Zembaty is executor of Loux's will and the only beneficiary is her grandson.
Zembaty has to choose which properties are to be sold to clear the estate's heavy debts.
Loux doesn't have any real opinion on Stoke Farm.
Conclusion: Loux would not object to Zembaty selling it rather than transferring it to her grandson.
Got to Answer E through process of elimination.
A- strengthens the argument
B- irrelevant to whether Loux would have an objection based on the given facts about Stoke Farm
C- does not weaken
D- strengthens the argument
E- Didn't love the answer, but does the most "weakening" in comparison to the other answers! If her grandson did express his desire to own a farm, it gives us a reason to believe that Loux would object the sell of Stoke Farm rather than transferring it.
Necessary assumption- find the answer that is necessary for the premise to get to the conclusion.
stimulus can be understood as so:
fertilizer -> /green manure crop -> poor soil structure
conclusion: /poor soil structure -> /fertilizer
All I did was take the contrapositive of the premise.
/poor soil structure -> green manure crop -> /fertilizer
You can see this in Answer E when you diagram it.
green manure crop-> /fertilizer
this allows the conclusion to be drawn. Not sure if this is right, but it did get me to the right answer pretty fast.
You can also perform the negation test to be sure:
At least some farmers in the region will grow green-manure crops without abandoning the use of chemical fertilizers.
This destroys the argument because if they will grow green manure crops without abandoning the use of fertilizers, then it is not necessary for them to abandon fertilizers. They can do both.
E is correct because it introduces an alternative explanation for why the number of meals sold decreased in the restaurants in operation both last year and this year. Maybe it was because people ate out less due to a severe decline in income, not necessarily a decrease in desirability.