Discussions

User Avatar
buckracing560
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT111.S3.Q21
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@tams2018, What was it that you didn't like about answer choice A? Did you eliminate that answer too quickly during the timed test or was it that you liked more than one answer and had trouble narrowing it down to one?

If I quickly eliminated a correct answer choice during the timed test, I find it helpful to spend a good amount of time during review studying what it was about the wording of that answer that made it look like a wrong answer.

For this question you would almost surely have to use process of elimination because there is no “perfect” answer choice. What I mean is that the answer to a strengthen question doesn’t have to make the argument air tight or “valid”. If another answer choice was available that added more support than A, then we would have to chose that instead of course.

1
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q20
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@BlindReviewer,

What new information does answer choice B provide? We already knew that the social impact of some new drugs is not well understood because the social impact of the new antihistamine drug is not well understood.

0
PrepTests ·
PT106.S3.Q25
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@maysa_t,

I would say that answer choice E doesn't wreck the argument completely because it only says, "The hypothalamus is known not to be causally linked to disease Y, and disease X is a subtype of disease Y.

Just because something is "known" to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is true. For example, at one time the world was "known" to be flat.

Would you agree?

0
PrepTests ·
PT106.S3.Q25
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@trashstudent,

A subtype is just a more specific name of a particular group within a set. Consider this example: "all men die before they turn 150 years old." If I said that American men X are a subset of all men Y, then I would know that all American men die before they turn 150 because all men die before they turn 150.

I hope this helps!

0
PrepTests ·
PT112.S4.Q20
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@tams2018,

The premises given were:

1 - The intro of new drug should be contingent upon understanding social impact

2 - The social impact of newly marketed AH is not clear

This leaves us wondering how the consumer advocate came to such a broad conclusion about slowing the general pace of bringing new drugs to the marketplace.

Answer choice A explains why this one instance of the antihistamine not having a clear social impact is relevant to all of the other new drugs. It’s because the social impact of the other new drugs being tested is even less understood than the antihistamine that had a social impact that was “far from clear.”

Answer choice B only tells us that the social impact of SOME of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood. SOME could be just ONE. We already knew that the social impact of the new antihistamine is poorly understood, so answer choice B provides no new information.

If answer B said, “the social impact of ALL of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood,” then this would connect premise 1 with the conclusion. Premise 2 would be irrelevant if we had this strong of an answer.

2
PrepTests ·
PT112.S3.Q6
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@jd208111,

Answer choice A is factually inaccurate. The government official’s claim was that a satisfactory way of eliminating chronic food shortages is NOT EASY to achieve.

The government official doesn’t claim that the country must someday be self-sufficient. However, it is implied by other statements that being self-sufficient is DESIRABLE.

Does this help?

1
PrepTests ·
PT111.S3.Q21
User Avatar
buckracing560
Friday, Feb 01 2019

@jonathansaleh,

Diagramming the conditional logic is helpful for many question types. During the test you would normally make these inferences quickly in your head unless it is a particularly long or complex argument that is hard to remember from beginning to end. During practice it does help to draw out the logic though to help picture the exact structure of the argument.

Remember that a strengthen answer choice could actually be a sufficient assumption if it makes the argument “valid”. Normally, the correct answer choice for a strengthen question will be not nearly strong enough to make the argument valid because that would make the correct answer much more obvious and it would generally make the question easier. For example, what if answer choice A said, “If the leader’s of all major parties have stated that they oppose a bill, that bill will almost surely fail to pass.” This would definitely strengthen the argument and it would also happen to be a sufficient assumption.

Does this help?

0
Study Groups · Calling for study buddies
User Avatar
buckracing560
Wednesday, Jan 30 2019

I think @haglerfran176 got busy with work or something. I sent a PM and no response yet.

What test does everyone want to BR? My suggestion would be either preptest 38 or preptest 85. What would everyone like to do?

What day is good for a weekly group call? Does Wednesday, Feb 6th at 7pm EST work for everyone to start?

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q10
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

I know this is an old post but I wanted to comment on the explanation for answer B. The use of the word "most" isn't the problem with this answer. Even in the correct answer, they use the word "typically", which is also not an absolute statement.

The problem with answer B is that it only restates basically what Bernard said without adding any new information to counter Bernard. We already know that typewriters have been superseded, and that modern equipment uses the same keyboard that typewriters used. However, we need to explain why this keyboard is still being used even though we are defending the argument that the keyboard's original purpose was to slow people down in order to not break the typewriter.

2
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q10
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

@tams2018, did you have any questions about the structure of the argument or the method used to weaken the argument?

My difficulty with this question was trying to choose between answer A and answer B. When taking the test under timed conditions I kept thinking that answer B perfectly explained why we still use the standard keyboard even though it isn't necessary to slow people down anymore. In my mind it just made sense that computers inherited the existing standardized keyboard because everyone was familiar with it and was already trained to use it.

In reality answer B doesn't explain anything. The answer needed to call out the assumptions that I didn't even realize I was making in my head.

The even bigger mistake that I made was not recognizing answer A as the obvious right answer. It seems like it's similar to answer B but in reality it's the only answer that does what we need it to do. For some reason I got "stuck" between A and B.

Having to call out the most common sense assumptions that we don't even realize we are making often makes for the most difficult LSAT questions.

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q8
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

Conclusion - The pundit’s argument is that there is no reason to use the airline's service more frequently, even though town officials recommended that the community do so in order to prevent the airline from discontinuing service.

Premise - The reason the pundit gives for disregarding the town official’s advice is that the town officials did not follow their own advice (they decided to drive to an out of town conference instead of fly).

However, the premise doesn’t support the conclusion unless it’s true that if the town officials don’t follow their own advice, the rest of community shouldn’t either. This is a huge assumption that the pundit makes. It’s an assumption we can call out and use to criticize the pundit’s argument.

A - If anything, this answer choice would support the town officials’ recommendation that the community should fly more frequently. However, the pundit’s argument is that the community SHOULDN’T follow the town official’s advice.

B - There is nothing in the argument that suggests that a profitable airline isn’t a possibility. The only reason the pundit gives for suggesting not to follow the town official’s advice is that the town officials didn’t follow their own advice.

C - It doesn’t matter how the town officials paid for their trip. The pundit didn’t presume one way or the other.

D - Again, this would support the town official’s argument that the community should fly more, not the pundit’s argument that the community should disregard the town official’s advice.

E - CORRECT - this connects the PUNDIT’S premise (the town officials didn’t follow their own advice to fly) to the PUNDIT’S conclusion (therefore there is no reason to fly more).

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q6
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

The argument presumes that coffee cannot be dangerous (harmful to your health) and beneficial at the same time. This erroneous assumption is used to connect the example of the two different articles to the subconclusion that the articles are contradictory.

The reason this is a flaw is because it is completely possible for something to be harmful to your health, yet still have some benefits. Take bull riding for example. It is dangerous (potential broken bones) but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any health benefits such as cardio exercise, improved flexibility, or improved balance.

0
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q8
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

It actually doesn't matter if driving is less expensive than flying or if it’s more expensive than flying. It might “make sense” to us to drive instead of fly when it is cheaper, but that is based on our real life experiences, not based on the information in the argument. The reason the town officials urged the community to fly was so that the airline service would not be discontinued. The idea being that it is worth the cost to fly from this town (whatever that cost happens to be) in order to prevent the airline from discontinuing service to the town.

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q7
User Avatar
buckracing560
Sunday, Jan 27 2019

Principle - it is prudent to always have someone else check your work because other people are better at detecting mistakes in your work than you are.

A - a general principle that this answer choice would illustrate is, people are generally better at teaching something if they had to work harder to learn that thing.

B - the principle in the stimulus says that you should have SOMEONE ELSE check your work for errors, not that YOU must make a special effort to clearly communicate.

C - this answer is wrong for several reason. First, the stimulus said that you should have someone else check your work, not that someone else should be the final authority to make a decision for you. Second, the principle in the stimulus talks about how other people are better at detecting ERRORS, not being better at detecting GOOD arguments. Third, the principle in the stimulus doesn’t suggest that one TYPE of person (non-expert) is better at detecting something than another type of person (expert). The principle only says that SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF should check your work.

D - CORRECT - in this illustration, one should always have their work (what they wrote) checked (proofread) by someone else (someone who does not know in advance what the writer meant to write) because other people are generally better at detecting mistakes (typographical errors) in the writer’s work than the writer himself.

E - this answer is also wrong for several reasons. The principle says that someone else should check your work to detect errors, not to make something more enjoyable or exciting. Also, the other person is supposed to CHECK your work, NOT MAKE A CHOICE FOR YOU.

2
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q6
User Avatar
buckracing560
Saturday, Jan 26 2019

Premise - one article claimed that coffee is dangerous

Premise - a different article argued that coffee has some benefits

Subconclusion - these opinions are contradictory

Conclusion - therefore experts are useless for guiding decisions about health

The first article claimed that coffee is dangerous (maybe because it causes heart attacks and strokes). The author of the second article might completely agree that coffee is dangerous even though he wrote an article that talks about some health benefits (how much energy it gives you, etc). However, this argument just assumes that these two articles are contradictory. Then, based on that assumption concludes that these two articles are enough evidence to show that experts are USELESS. This is way too strong of a conclusion to jump to from the information given in the argument. Also, we don't even know for sure if these articles were written by experts. This is a terrible argument all around.

A - the argument doesn't take this for granted, it only says that ONE ARTICLE CLAIMED coffee is dangerous.

B - the argument does not presume that people ALWAYS want expert guidance regarding health. This is factually inaccurate.

C - this argument is about expert guidance for decisions about health. Expert opinions in other areas are irrelevant.

D - the argument doesn't presume that expert opinion is trustworthy. Quite the opposite actually.

E - CORRECT - the argument depends on the assumption that coffee cannot be dangerous and also have some benefits at the same time. This answer points out that this isn't true.

0
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q5
User Avatar
buckracing560
Saturday, Jan 26 2019

Naima - the proposed new computer system would have some benefits over the current system, so we should make the conversion as soon as possible.

Nakai - the cost of converting is even greater than any predicted benefits, so we should delay the conversion as long as possible.

A - Naima seems to think that the new computer system will operate more smoothly and efficiently, if it is fully implemented. Nakai does not agree or disagree with this position. Instead, he says that the cost of converting would be greater than ANY predicted benefits.

B - neither person says anything about needing the BEST computer system available. They are only discussing whether they should convert to the proposed system.

C - Naima definitely seems to think it's technically possible. Her argument would fall apart if that wasn't the case. Again, Nakai gives no opinion on this matter.

D - the test writers are trying to trick us into thinking that Naima agrees and Nakai disagrees with this statement. However, Naima doesn't say that the current system doesn't work well, he only says that the proposed system would be smoother and more efficient. Additionally, Nakai doesn't say that the current system does what it's supposed to do. Maybe she thinks that computer systems aren't even necessary in the first place.

E - CORRECT - Naima says that they should accomplish the conversion as soon as possible. Nakai says that they should delay the conversion as long as possible.

0
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q4
User Avatar
buckracing560
Saturday, Jan 26 2019

Correction... For answer choice E it isn't actually clear whether very small amounts are significant amounts or not. It COULD be that a very small amount of toxin T is significant. Since we don't have any information to tell us that this is the case, answer E doesn't strengthen the counterargument.

Besides, if the type of analysis used was insensitive to very small amounts of toxin T, and she was looking for very small amounts, then what would have been the point of performing the analysis? Presumably, it would have been because she wasn't aware that the analysis used was insensitive to very small amounts. If that was the case, she definitely wouldn't be helping her argument that she didn't commit fraud when she got a test result that she didn't like and didn't report it!

0
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q4
User Avatar
buckracing560
Saturday, Jan 26 2019

Now we are supposed to strengthen the anthropologist's counterargument that she didn't commit fraud based on the fact that the powder was tested in an acidic solution.

There are two gaps that I see. First, if the results were invalid, does that mean she didn't commit fraud? We would assume so, but the argument would be strengthened if this was explicitly stated. Second, how does testing the powder in an acidic solution make the test invalid? Is this problematic for the experiment for some reason? We don't know because the argument doesn't tell us.

A - in order to strengthen the anthropologist's counterargument we need to strengthen the support that her premise gives to the argument. We can't just make a separate argument that ignores the anthropologist's argument.

B - we don't know if the powder was stored for a long time. And, even if it was, this has nothing to do with the counterargument that the anthropologist is making.

C - CORRECT - the powder WAS put into an acidic solution, so this explains her counterargument that the test was invalid by connecting these two ideas.

D - this would tend to strengthen the chemist's argument, not the anthropologist's counterargument.

E - we don't care if the type of analysis used was insensitive to very small amounts. The experiment was testing for SIGNIFICANT amounts.

0
PrepTests ·
PT114.S1.Q3
User Avatar
buckracing560
Saturday, Jan 26 2019

Chemist's charge - the anthropologist committed fraud by not reporting the results of her test when they were not favorable to her hypothesis.

The gap here is that we don't know why the anthropologist didn't report the test results. Maybe her lab has a policy that all tests are to be run twice to ensure accuracy before the results are reported. Maybe her dog peed on the experiment and she was concerned that the results could have been contaminated. There are many reasons someone might not report the results of a test that have nothing to do with fraud.

However, we are looking for a principle that supports the chemist's charge so our job is to connect the fact that the anthropologist didn't report the results to the conclusion that she committed fraud. Answer choice E does this perfectly.

A - the anthropologist didn't report the results, so neither of these principles could support any argument about the anthropologist, at least not by using the information given in the stimulus.

B - again, the anthropologist did NOT report the results so this is irrelevant

C - the chemist charged the anthropologist with fraud. This principle is going in the wrong direction.

D - again, the anthropologist didn't report anything so this is irrelevant.

E - CORRECT - the anthropologist didn't report her experiment. Also, the experiment could be interpreted as disconfirming her hypothesis because the results of the test were negative and her hypothesis was that they would be positive. This principle allows us to conclude that she committed fraud.

0
PrepTests ·
PT146.S3.Q23
User Avatar
buckracing560
Thursday, Jan 24 2019

The businessperson is arguing that the maintenance was the only reason he was late. He argues that had it not been for the maintenance he would have been on time. His reasoning is that he was only about 5 minutes late and it took him 15 minutes to find a parking spot after he found out the parking area in front of the building was closed. He seems to be implying that he would have found a parking spot in less than about 10 minutes had there not been maintenance that day. We don’t know if this is true or not. Maybe it usually takes 20 minutes to find a parking spot and he was lucky to find one within just 15 minutes that day.

It doesn’t matter if the reason for the maintenance was for a paint smudge in one of the parking space lines or if it was for a giant crater the size of a blue whale.

Let’s say that the reason for performing maintenance was a giant crater. If the maintenance wasn’t done until the following week would the businessperson have gotten to his meeting on time? Who knows? Maybe he would. Do large craters cause more than a 10 minute delay? Remember that he was only about 5 minutes late to the meeting, so if a crater only causes a 7 minute delay with no maintenance workers jamming up the parking lot instead of the 15 minute delay he experienced then he would have been on time. In order to know if he would have been on time had the maintenance workers not been present we need to know how long it would have taken him to park on any other day in this parking lot when there were no maintenance workers present.

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S3.Q23
User Avatar
buckracing560
Thursday, Jan 24 2019

When looking for the main conclusion of the argument you have to ask yourself if the premises given are there to support the phrase that you are thinking is the conclusion. The statement "I was late to the meeting" doesn't have a support structure. There is no argument to convince us that he was late. This is simply stated as a fact. The argument that the businessperson is making is that the REASON he was late was because of the maintenance. If you think about it in terms of the main point of the passage this makes more sense.

Does this help?

0
PrepTests ·
PT146.S3.Q23
User Avatar
buckracing560
Thursday, Jan 24 2019

You are right that the businessperson was trying to make a causal argument. However, his reasoning depends on assumptions. In order to know if A caused B as suggested in the argument, we need to ask questions that eliminate other possible alternative causes of B (the businessperson being late to the meeting). Answer choice D doesn't do that because the businessperson having a tendency to be late to meetings in the past doesn't resolve the question of whether he would have been on time to the meeting that is being discussed. The premises given to support the businessperson's conclusion are that it took 15 minutes to find a parking spot and that he was only a few minutes late. The question we need to ask is how long would it have taken to park if it weren't for the area in front of the building being closed? If the answer is more than about 10 minutes then the businessperson's argument falls apart.

0
Study Groups · Calling for study buddies
User Avatar
buckracing560
Thursday, Jan 24 2019

Did we pick a date to start?

0
User Avatar
•

Wednesday, Jan 23 2019

buckracing560

PT2.S4.Q3 - The United States has never been a great

I eliminated all of the answer choices. I'm not sure how the author does not question the ethical basis of an economic situation. The moral that the author suggests in the stimulus is that a country cannot live for long without foreign trade. However, we are told that the U.S. has found most of it's raw materials and customers within the country and has suffered consequences from not participating in more foreign trade. Wouldn't this suggest that the author is questioning the ethical basis of the economic situation (not a lot of foreign trade) in the U.S.?

Admin note: edited title

0
Admissions · How Strictly is Early Admission Enforced
User Avatar
buckracing560
Monday, Jan 21 2019

Did you particularly want to go to NYU or was it just a decision based on ranking and offers made?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?