- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
This a causal logic flaw. To poke holes in this, we could say that in fact B is a cause of A instead; that C factor actually causes A and B, etc. In other words: what if those with excessive childhood anxiety and later life depression actually just both have a certain other ailment that is responsible for both of these things? (B) touches right on this: If all of the symptoms (childhood anxiety, migraine headaches, depression later) had a common cause, then maybe that other thing would be the causes of all of these symptoms, as opposed to the flow being childhood anxiety --> migraines --> depression.
Ruling out A, D, and E: These facts aren't necessary. The argument just says that anxiety can be a cause for later-life headaches/depression, doesn't matter for how many, etc.
Ruling out C: The argument doesn't necessarily make a generalization by saying that anxiety childhood is one of the causes. The argument also touches on the evidence fairly enough; it isn't inconsistent with it, just not consistent either. We aren't able to make this deduction from the evidence we have, but that doesn't mean inconsistency. (Curious y'alls thoughts on this!)
@suhyahn In your exact boat friend, from the commute to the underperformance on the real thing. Hoping things get better for us soon <3
A: This is a different group of people - perhaps similar, but we don't know. An arrangement of stones is also a different material.
B, correct: Makes sense. Shows that the straight lines and the bird figure both have something to do with astronomical phenomena. If the straight lines point to where something was observed, the bird figure could've been that observed constellation.
C: This doesn't tell us anything about the bird figure. This doesn't tell us anything about the complex pattern. No mention of astronomical phenomena.
D: This is a different group of people, we don't know if they are similar enough to compare. A rock engraving also is too dissimilar from the bird figure and the line structure.
E: Timeline here doesn't tell us anything without us filling in gaps and extrapolating that this would somehow mean they are both related to astronomy.
Why not E: These features reasonably prevent harm... after an accident, but we can't say that they've altered the accident rate. It's the accident rate, not the death/injury/car damage rate. Also, the fact that this happened shortly after the speed limit was introduced, one could argue that the speed limit was the catalyst! (Curious if anyone else thought that, too).
For C: If the Magdalenian culture, dominant in the late period, was more "efficient" at lamp-making, then presumably they were able to produce more lamps. Efficiency regards how quickly and productively a task can be completed, so the late period was more productive in lamp-making, leading to, what we can assume, greater output. I think the trick here (tell me if you feel the same) is that efficiency here is not to be confused with how effective the lamps are, etc. It doesn't say "more efficient lamps," but rather "more efficient lamp-making techniques." If it said the lamps themselves were more efficient (at like....lighting up the room, greater area, idk, lol) then perhaps that wouldn't help explain.
Whereas E: This tells us something about the type of lamp, but more kinds doesn't have to mean more. The early period could've had just one style, but 1,000 lamps, and the latter period 2 styles, but 2 lamps total. To think that more kinds means "more" total would be an extrapolation that we are not given and cannot infer.
@Konarocks Really relate to this from the commute to the library, genuinely right there with you
@Stas1973 This is such an excellent explanation, thank you so much! I think (C) further preys on us to try to make the reasoning jump using our own life knowledge that maybe microwaves operate more quickly than just trying to heat by another method -- but if anything that would strengthen the conclusion, showing that it is something about microwaves and their "speed" than heat, right?
Reasoning: A cup of raw milk, after being heated in a microwave oven to 50 degrees Celsius, contains half its initial concentration of a particular enzyme, lysozyme. If, however, the milk reaches that temperature through exposure to a conventional heat source of 50 degrees Celsius, it will contain nearly all of its initial concentration of the enzyme.
Conclusion: Therefore, what destroys the enzyme is not heat but microwaves, which generate heat.
Flaws in the reasoning: Okay -- so less enzyme through microwave vs. conventional, at the same temperature. But maybe there is a different factor that causes this; maybe there's something about the way microwaves are constructed, about the way the plate inside the microwave rotates, etc?
A: This is just a descriptive fact about a different scenario with microwaves, which if anything may strengthen the argument (if some undue work is done for it) by proving the enzyme is destroyed.
B: This is just a descriptive fact about what can be done after the enzyme is destroyed, but does not tell us anything about the author's hypothesis about what causes the enzyme to be destroyed in the first place.
C: This is just a descriptive fact within the world of conventional heat sources, and doesn't tell us anything about the comparison between those sources and microwaves. This AC also doesn't talk about enzymes.
D: This is just a descriptive fact about the taste of milk. This does not tell us anything about enzymes. We'd need to do a lot of work to make that connection ourselves without evidence.
E, correct: This provides an alternate explanation for why the enzyme may be destroyed. Perhaps those smaller zones that get "much hotter" are at temperature that enzymes cannot handle, and thus it is a matter of heat, and not the microwave/mechanism.
Context: A store was vandalized repeatedly over a six-month period. When discussing the problem with a friend, the store owner mentioned having heard that bright lighting around the perimeter of commercial establishments had been known to reduce the incidence of vandalism.
Reasoning to support: Three months later, the store owner reported to the same friend that there had been no incidents of vandalism since their previous conversation.
Conclusion (of the friend): Bright lighting had been installed around the perimeter of the store.
Flaws in the reasoning: No evidence exists to support this conclusion, besides an assumption. There could be a multitude of other ways to reduce the vandalism / other reasons that it stopped. The vandals could've even gotten bored of it and decided to do robberies instead. I mean, who knows?
A: This could definitely point to an alternative explanation for why there are no longer incidents of vandalism. Doesn't require us to do too much work for the AC.
B: This could definitely point to bright lights not being a possibility, if there hasn't been enough time to install them, it must have been something else.
C, correct: C is a descriptive fact that requires us to do too much work to make work in our favor. So all of the neighboring stores also had reduced vandalism.... but we still don't know why they did. If anything, (C) may be in support of the friend's conclusion.
D: This could definitely point to bright lights not being a possibility, if there isn't enough money to install them, it must have been something else.
E: This could point to an alternative explanation for why there are no longer incidents of vandalism. Doesn't require us to do too much work for the AC.
Conclusion: The policy of dumping nuclear waste only in the more sparsely populated regions indicates...some misgiving about safety on the part of those responsible for policy.
Reasoning: It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby. If this claim could be made with certainty, there would be no reason for not locating sites in areas of dense population.
Error in Argument: There may be numerous other reasons for why these sites are in sparsely populated areas that have nothing to do with safety or the human population - affordability, perhaps?
A: This is compatible with the argument that there may be a misgiving about safety, and is just a descriptive statement about why a sparsely populated location may be a good idea for the waste dumping.
B: This is compatible with the argument that there may be a misgiving about safety, and is just a descriptive statement about why a sparsely populated location may be a good idea for the waste dumping.
C, correct: This could be a different reason that the waste is dumped in sparsely populated areas. It weakens the fact that the dumping in the sparsely populated regions indicates a misgiving about safety by weakening the supposed causation here.
D: This is compatible with the argument that there may be a misgiving about safety, and is just a descriptive statement about a different practice. I saw this as potentially strengthening.
E: This is compatible with the argument that there may be a misgiving about safety, and is just a descriptive statement that doesn't serve us either way unless we already accept other facts. It says that we should situate nuclear dumps in areas that pose least threat; we don't know if that has to be the sparsely populated areas (presumably), we don't know with certainty whether people have doubts about the safety or not, either, the author is assuming this.
I hope this is helpful - please let me know your guys' thoughts, especially on (D)!
Citizen's conclusion: Our law enforcement system has become decreasingly able to prevent violent crime.
Citizen's support: Each year since 1970, a new record has been set for the number of murders committed in this city.
City official's (implicit) conclusion: It isn't necessarily true that our law enforcement system has become decreasingly able to prevent violent crime.
City official's support: The city’s population has risen steadily since 1970. + The number of murder victims per 100 people has actually fallen slightly in the city since 1970.
A: This would not affect the argument because the argument is localized to violent crime.
B: This would not affect the argument because: 1. it does not comment on the effectiveness of law enforcement. 2. This just provides a descriptive fact about the murders. 3. The city official already tells us that the number of victims decreased, we don't need to know more information about the spread of that decrease. Even if we did, how would that counter the argument?
C: If anything this would help the city official in demonstrating the information he cites is accurate.
D: 1. Whether law enforcement increased to be sufficient to serve the population does not mean that said law enforcement is effective. So we cannot say that this would support the citizen's claims. 2. This does not have direct effect on the city official's argument - it is compatible with the city official's argument. The city official may believe that the amount of officials has increased and still believe that the number of murder victims has fallen!
E, correct: E tells us that the quality of health care has changed between 1970 and in the past year, and that if it had not changed, we'd be seeing a higher assault/murder rate. This helps the citizen's argument, since then law enforcement could still be ineffective, and the statistics cited by the city official are only so because of the increase in health care quality. The city official says the number of murder victims has fallen; perhaps this is because victims of attempted murder survive the assault, due to what we learn from (E). It undermines slightly, but it does undermine by bringing up a new consideration. It could be compatible with the city official's implicit beliefs, but it also could not be.
@KellyKim Hi! Would totally love to chat privately because I relate so much to what you're saying (re: this being so horrible/hard, the T-14, something is an execution problem as opposed to a solving problem). I think having the execution issues is what's so frustrating because it feels so much more difficult to fix. Always around to also study or bounce questions off of one another. We got this!
@haena Yes, totally relatable feeling. And that's really kind of you about the discussion threads, thanks so much :'') I'll send you a DM, once again thank you so much for this message.
@asherketchum I'm definitely in the same boat as you with the testing anxiety, even when it's subconscious/I think that it isn't happening, it seems like it still overtakes me. My DMs are always open and would love to study together/figure out new ways to reuse the material together, etc! Thanks so much :')
@MorganLSAT Thanks so much. Are there things that specifically help you be calmer re: the test and its stakes? And when you take them in public spaces, are you bringing headphones or earplugs? I've never taken it in person before so trying to simulate that experience! Thank you again
@PhoebeHopp Replying not counting try #1, since that was (stupidly) a diagnostic. Regarding what the week leading up has looked like for the others, in Oct/Jan, I definitely did burn myself out working up until the last day; in June, I stopped PTing the weekend before, and just did sections/reviewed notes. I tried to have an enjoyable, relaxing week, took walks, got a massage, only did one section the day before and took the day off work, went to the grocery store, etc.
Leading up to October 2025, I was extremely anxious, and panicked throughout most of the exam, and didn't finish. In January 2026, I was calm, but still had to rush. I left both of those exams worried that I underperformed, and I had found the tests very difficult, especially the RC content and the "logic-game-y" style Q's. In June 2026, I was calm, at every break, I thought I was doing really well; I found the RC to be right up my alley, and like I lucked out. I got my ideal format for the test. I felt a bit brain-fogged on the second half, but thought I was really powering through. I walked out ready to finally see my performance reflected on record, thinking this had to have been the one, only to extremely jarringly wake up on score release day to see the same exact score zero give from when I had found it really tough compared to when I found it easy, and basically the same score as my diagnostic from ages prior.
Re: timing, the only thing I could think is going too quickly, leaving myself a lot of time (~10 min, I have 150% time) for the last q's in the LR sections that I find tough, which maybe could've been better spent earlier on in the sections.
Do you have advice for receiving the same score multiple times? I am feeling a bit hopeless given that I got the same score when I found the exam very difficult and when I found it very easy. I aimed to contact you via email but am not sure if at the correct address!
Same goal and timeline!