- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
Q-type: Author's Perspective, Implied
A: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told that humor is the reason why.
B: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told this "often" happens, just given one quote/instance.
C: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told anything about any other African American dances.
D: Inaccurate information/misrepresentation of the passage. We aren't told anything about later dances and more separate-sex dancing.
E: Correct. The passage says some "newly rich industrialists...found in the grand flourishes of her version of the cakewalk a fitting vehicle for celebrating their newfound social rank." So they liked the cakewalk to place emphasis on their new rank. To "bolster" doesn't need to mean to "increase," here it means to support, to celebrate, etc.
Hi! Yes, message me and we can find a time for Zoom or to use 7Sage study room. If we don't find a good time you can also DM me specific questions you need help with :)
Wondering if anyone can help clarify, "If one tries to diagram this, it comes out to /A & /B → /C." I thought it was A & /B --> /C: If (A --> /B) --> (A --> /C), does it not instead become A & /B --> /C?
I assume this is the case because we are trying to deal specifically in the hand we are dealt here (THIS conclusion, + THESE premises), so we want an AC that is necessary for this argument, not necessary in general for periodontitis to be eliminated worldwide? #help @KevinLin'sOldUserName
Would also love to help people over Zoom, in the same position as you, or to help you lesson plan / etc for your teaching! Also always happy to share explanations together!
@partenr Hi! They bring up this "path" idea to mean "one part at at time," particular path. So your eye goes from up to down on the painting, or left to right, whatever direction, it is taking in each piece at a different time, even if it's within seconds.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you so much for your response! I am going to try this.
Argument: Words that end in "ee" generally designate a person affected by an action performed by someone else. "Absentee" is an exception, absenting oneself; refers to the person acting doing the action.
A: "Honoree," someone is being honored by someone else, affected by an action performed by someone else.
B: "Appointee," someone is being appointed by someone else, affected by an action performed by someone else.
C: "Nominee," someone is being nominated by someone else, affected by an action performed by someone else.
D: "Transferee," someone is being transferred by someone else, affected by an action performed by someone else.
E: Correct. "Escapee," you cannot be made to escape by someone else. I mean, I guess someone could help facilitate that, but the escapee has the agency and is the one escaping, rather than affected by an action done by someone else. "Escapee," like "absentee," refers to the person acting and doing the action.
@antitrust_fan Right! I have no clue if I'm getting that many off in RC or LR… I guess a lot of it boils down to reading word by word, line by line, fact checking if we can. Also maybe not letting our knowledge of the test carry too much? Because I was thinking I maybe got some wrong by choosing what I'd "know" the LSAT to be insinuating or leading to but it seems nowadays the test tries to fight against that actively. We got this!
I am in the EXACT same boat, especially of people telling me that they don't know what to advise anymore in my shoes. Know the test what I believe to be really well yet continuously doing lower on the real deal. If you are given any advice that changes things/seems to help a lot please please do share. Regardless here to chat and help eachother!
I am curious what you did to make sure that you didn't dip below PT averages when taking the real thing, as that has been really killer for me / the more "life-scenario" type questions on the recent tests.
Why A works: The conclusion says that companies should pursue debtors on their own. We know that the agencies give companies 15% of the total amount they are owed. If companies ended up with 15% or less by pursuing debtors on their own, there would not be an advantage to doing it on their own. If A were not true, and they did not typically collect more than 15%, then there would not be reason to do as the conclusion suggests. If they do typically collect more than 15%, then this is a reasonable suggestion.
For B, the cost exceeding 15% does not tell us about how much of the outstanding bills the companies will receive by pursuing debtors on their own (whereas A does tell us that). We don't know the cost to companies of having agencies pursue debtors. B could be true and the companies could still end up gaining a lot more of their money back, so B is not necessary.
In the same boat as you guys in this thread and like @hellim have a ten-point discrepancy and felt crazy for it, like that big of a discrepancy was crazy, so I appreciate being feel seen :'). Maybe if we all talk through some together we'll find things we were doing wrong. Or maybe the tricks are getting harder to spot or identify given the pressure of the test. Regardless, following this thread because I am too looking for the same answers
@AshmiBoora825 Hi! I hope this is somewhat helpful - I think we can see them clarifying these are different groups in the way they speak about them. For the "social drinkers," Steven is talking about lowering the allowable blood alcohol level/limit, whereas Miguel is talking about people who "drive with a level of twice the limit." When he says that Steven's proposal won't have an effect on that group, that helps demarcate that there are multiple groups at play. I think they are also going off of this definition here: "A social drinker is someone who drinks alcohol only or mostly during social gatherings, such as parties, dinners, or outings with friends."
@SirHarvey I think in this instance, we're looking at Miguel's argument in conversation with Steven's. When he says no to Steven's proposal regarding social drinkers and the impact that will have, he is saying that he doesn't think deterring social drinkers would be as helpful as Steven thinks. Miguel goes so far as to say that it would "have little effect." He doesn't directly say "social drinkers aren't a big enough problem," but he says no to Steven's proposal that hinges on social drinkers' behavior. He also says that "heavy drinkers" are the "most important aspect" of the problem, so then we can infer that every other type of drinker he does not see as posing as much of a problem. I hope this is helpful somewhat!
@Jake1776 In the same boat as you as getting similar scores on an exam I found super hard and one I felt great about!!! I thought it was so strange, like how on Earth did this go the same way when I felt so different about them! Here to study together or talk through questions to make sure we never underperform again.
@superchillasian Happy to support eachother/talk through q's and stuff as fellow last-attempt-takers. We got this!!!
Would love to study outside of the tutoring session, am in the same range with the same goals
Hi. I am a very high PT-average scorer who has already worked with a lot of tutors and feel as though I really understand the LSAT. Regardless, I have messed up on every real exam I've taken and scored well below my average. I definitely studied for the LSAT every free second I had. I'm wondering if you have advice on the "smart studying" you talk about, a good balance, and going in there and actually showing your skills on test day. :( I appreciate it so much.
A: P never attacks M's understanding of the value.
B: P is attempting to refute by giving an explanation.
C: P never discusses the Phoenician writing system.
D: P does exactly this, saying here are X and Y reason why your hypothesis is "laughable" ("absurd").
E: M doesn't put forth evidence, but rather explains his ideas; further, P advances an alternative, rather than using what M gave us.
Support: Fish from experimental hatcheries, who are raised in stimulating environments and do varied activities, are bolder in exploring new environments and trying new food than those in traditional hatcheries, raised in dull environments.
Conclusion: Fish raised in the experimental hatcheries are more likely to survive after their release.
Pre-phrase: Fish that are bolder in exploring new environments / trying new food are more likely to survive.
A: Irrelevant. It does not matter what is economically feasible here to make a conclusion about survival rate of released fish.
B: Irrelevant. This doesn't help explain why they are more likely to survive than the traditional hatchery fish.
C: Yes. If this were not true, and the traditional hatchery fish didn't have a disadvantage by not trying new food/exploring the environment, then we wouldn't have the same level of support for the fact that the experimental hatchery fish are more likely to survive.
D: This doesn't need to be true. The experimental hatchery fish could still be more likely to survive even if they don't need to eat many types of food.
E: This doesn't help explain why they are more likely to survive than the traditional hatchery fish, because being prepared for a stimulating environment isn't known to correlate with trying new food and exploring and thus surviving yet. (*Curious your thoughts on this explanation for E?)
Hi @J.Y.Ping ! I know this is an old comment but this speaks to something I get tripped up on often, when a word is too out of place to make sense as the correct answer. Do you have any general advice for when we can overlook things like this issue in (E) and when we should be less loose about it? I don't want to walk away from this question thinking just that it was the only one that was decent. Is it that, because this is an implied question, we can make the connection that the author may think celebrating rank helps bolster it/maintain it?