Self-study
#feedback What I've highlighted or underlined in the passage disappears when blind-reviewing. It would be very helpful to still have that information, to review if what I highlighted/underlined was helpful
calliekoskovich
- Joined
- Oct 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
Goal score: 174
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027
Discussions
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 26
I went to the answer choices looking for an answer choice similar to C, but I thought C was a trap answer.
I thought C was a trap answer because the company could still save money overall with lower electricity bills if the savings outweighed initial generator costs.
So I chose B. But B is not correct because of the conditional in the conclusion: "IF steel-manufacturing plants could feed the heat..."
The conclusion doesn't require this to be true. The conclusion states that IF this is true, then the plant can implement this to save money.
Takeway: notice a conditional in the conclusion!
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 26
Flaw to recognize: saying there is no causation with good evidence just because there are some outliers
I chose answer B because I thought it was pointing out that there could be multiple combined factors that cause schizophrenia (like genetics + environmental factors). But that's not what B says. B says that the author is concluding that schizophrenia is only caused by chromosal damage - and that's not what the author is concluding
calliekoskovich
Tuesday, Feb 24
The journalist assumes:
Because small studies are reported more often AND newspapers report dramatic studies → Small studies must be more dramatic.
But that conclusion only follows if both types of studies exist in roughly equal numbers.
The argument ignores this crucial possibility:
What if small observational studies are simply far more common?
If there are many more small observational studies overall, then even if they are less likely to be dramatic, they could still appear in newspapers more often simply because there are so many of them.
calliekoskovich
Friday, Feb 20
I brought in a lot of outside knowlege/intuition here. Concepts of justice in the real world are so nuanced, that "partly" made more sense to me. But the author says these rationales are clearly distinct.
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 19
I was looking for a "snowball" analogy
Elite wanted monument construction -> war/raids for workers -> ultimately led to Mayan downfall
A fit this analogy to me: poor weather conditions -> bad crops -> no food on the shelves
To me, this fits far better fit for Lowe's hypothesis
calliekoskovich
Wednesday, Feb 18
The Loophole taught me to be suspicious of "ladder" answers (if A goes up, B goes up).
But it is an acceptable answer choice if the stimulus is very specific about the correlation: "and the antitumor activity of beta-glucans increases as the degree of branching increases"
calliekoskovich
Friday, Feb 13
I immediately understood the argument flaw, but I really misunderstood the grammar.
B can be rewritten as, "The argument provides no justification for preference to one view versus a second competing view"
calliekoskovich
Friday, Feb 13
The key to this question is spotting the columnist’s core assumption.
The conclusion:
The number of species on Earth is probably not dwindling.
Why does the columnist think that?
Because:
Extinction is natural.
About as many species will go extinct this year as in 1970.
New species are emerging at about the same rate as they have for centuries.
🚨 The Hidden Assumption
The argument quietly assumes:
The number of new species emerging is at least equal to the number going extinct.
If that’s true, then the total number of species stays stable.
If it’s false, then the number of species could absolutely be declining.
Why the Correct Answer Weakens
In 1970 fewer new species emerged than went extinct.
Let’s plug that into the argument.
The columnist says:
About as many species will go extinct this year as in 1970.
New species are emerging at about the same rate as for centuries.
But if in 1970 more species went extinct than emerged, then:
The total number of species decreased in 1970.
And if extinction rates now are similar to 1970…
And emergence rates are similar to historical norms…
Then species numbers are likely still decreasing.
That directly undercuts the conclusion that species numbers are “probably not dwindling.”
The Logical Structure
The columnist needs:
Emergence rate ≥ Extinction rate
The correct answer shows:
Emergence rate < Extinction rate (at least in 1970)
That creates a net loss.
That’s fatal to the argument.
LSAT Pattern Tip
This is a classic rate comparison flaw.
Whenever you see:
“Process A happens at X rate”
“Process B happens at historical rate”
Conclusion: “No net change”
Ask yourself:
👉 Do we actually know the two rates are equal?
Here, we don’t — and the correct answer proves they weren’t.
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 12
I understood the "too trendy" part of answer choice B being correct, but I struggled with the link between being incompetent and "unsuccessful"
I think the answer clicked when I separated "how well recordings sell" into two parts:
recordings sell well -> might be unsuccessful (no mark on success)
recordings sell poorly -> might be unsuccessful (no mark on success)
Support: weak sales -> might be incompetence
Pseudo Sufficent Assumption (answer B): incompetence -> unsuccessful
Conclusion: weak sales -> might be unsuccessful (no mark on success)
I'm still struggling with "might" in the stimulus vs. the "is" in the answer choices
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 12
I read "risks to life" as "risks to own life"
Take away: don't put words in the author's mouth!!
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Feb 12
I misunderstood most of this passage but I was really thrown off by thinking the "50-year-old woman" and "Nisa" were two different people. That is how it is presented :(
calliekoskovich
Monday, Feb 09
For some reason on the first read my brain did not recognize that "only one star" would mean not "several stars"
calliekoskovich
Friday, Jan 30
This really tripped me up for some reason. I thought A could not be right because animal excrement would not necessarily be there because animals are pulling carts - it could be from free roaming animals.
But I missed "relatively" in the answer choice, which makes it more significant
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Jan 29
I read the question stem to quickly and assumed it would be asking about proof of language NOT having essential correspondence to thing it describes. ugh
calliekoskovich
Tuesday, Jan 27
I read "physiological" as "psychological" TWICE - under time and in blind review :(
calliekoskovich
Monday, Jan 19
I got this right but I was unsure about the part of A that says "natural conditions". To me, it seemed like the stimulus was all about creating the right conditions, not taking advantage of conditions that happen naturally
calliekoskovich
Friday, Jan 16
Per JY’s explanation - where in the passage does it say that the literary establishment “prefers cosmopolitan themes over the agrarian themes of Mexican American writing”?
I read that:
“Literary reputation and success in Mexico...are often bestowed or denied by this literary establishment”
“Moreover, the work of Mexican writers is often longer in form and marked by greater cosmopolitanism”
Yes - the work of Mexican righters is more cosmopolitan. And yes - the literary establishment bestows success. But I am not reaading anything that says the establishment bestows success BECAUSE of the cosmopolitanism.
To me, this would only be implied. And I would argue that the same degree of assumption is required for answer choice C (that A predominant strength of Mexican American writers is that they are not tied to a major literary establishment and so are free to experiment in a way many Mexican writers are not)
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Jan 15
Negation of A: Animals could make major changes in their behavior even if they are not capable of complex reasoning.
This negation does not affect the argument, because the support of the argument is that the reptiles cannot make major changes to their behavior.
An assumption about what it means if they CAN make major changes to their behavior does not matter
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Jan 15
I got this right but was unsure about B. After reviewing, I see why B is incorrect.
If we negate B, the conclusion could still be true.
Answer choice B Negation: facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is almost always enhanced by expert knowledge of the machiens inner workings.
This doesn't affect the author's argument - the author is arguing that students don't need to be tech experts to be prepared for the future, what makes them tech experts doesn't matter.
Answer choice C Negation: most jobs in tomorrow's job market will demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use by experts.
If you negate this answer choice, then the author is incorrect about not needing tech skills more than verbal skills
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Jan 15
I had a lot of trouble with this question. None of the answers seemed correct to me, when considering the logic applied to other LSAT questions
This requires us to assume that Loux wants exactly what her grandson wants? How can we possibly make that assumption? Just because she is fond of him, does not mean she wants him to get everything he desires.
calliekoskovich
Thursday, Jan 08
I got the right answer but was a little stuck on D.
My thought was a bad economy could lead to more younger household workers needing to join the work force.
I thought A was a trap answer. But "cost of speaking in borrowed voices" was a clue - Landes and Badiner thought women should have used their own voices