Subscription pricing
Does anyone know how to pay by installments for the Unlimited Editing package? Thanks in advance.
PT Questions
catherine2burton97
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
catherine2burton97
Saturday, Aug 24 2019
Hi Lsatplaylist, thanks for your suggestion. I’ve since found out the option is offered, but the payment link is provided directly through email.
catherine2burton97
Friday, Sep 13 2019
#5
I’m not sure that J.Y.’s explanation for Q.5 AC (A) is entirely correct. To reply to “Why do the Kayapo use video technology to create legal records?” with “to have something legally binding” sounds like circular logic to me. Certainly, if AC (A) instead said “Why do the Kayapo use video technology to document transactions?” I would concur with J.Y.’s explanation, but it does not.
I think a better explanation can be found in lines 57 and 58 within the same sentence, “Primarily an oral society.” “Why do the Kayapo use video technology to create legal records?” because they are “Primarily an oral society.”
catherine2burton97
Thursday, Oct 10 2019
@ Thanks for the great reply.
Disclaimer: I’m not a logician; I’m sure this quandary has been answered somewhere in a philosophy textbook or journal article.
I completely empathize with your $200 LSAT argument, but I think it falls into an important trap.
In the real world, the $200 fee can be commonly accepted as the only requirement to take the LSAT. However, in the “world of logic,” $200 is NOT the only NC. It is also necessary to be alive, to register online, etc. There are a million other NCs. In your own words “ there's still the possibility of inclement weather, or you getting in an accident, or the LSAT going bankrupt.” Are these not also a kind of NC? It is necessary that none of these conditions (which are by themselves necessary) occur.
Thus, $200 is either not the only NC OR the other conditions you mentioned are not NCs.
I would imagine that we can only identify all the NCs in the world of logic.
This is why I’m quite confident that you would never see the phrase “the only NC” in LG and very, very rarely in LR (maybe in older PTs). Though, it would be great if someone could find an example.
TLDR: If you state there’s only one NC, you cannot include any new NCs.
catherine2burton97
Wednesday, Oct 09 2019
While it would be very, very rare to see an AC like this, I believe it could be correct (though you should ask a philosophy professor or logician).
The crux of the problem is whether a set of all NCs is equal to a SC. In your example AC, the "author takes for granted that only B is required for A.” If B is the only NC, it is equal to the set of all NCs.
It seems to me that if we meet all NCs, we have a SC. For example,
For a plant to grow, there are 3 NCs: sunlight, water, and nutrients. If we have these 3 NCs, can we correctly infer the plant will grow? No. These are three NCs, but they are not the entire set of NCs. For example, if a plant is infected it will not grow, if it is chopped down it will not grow, etc.
However, what if we have two groups of NCs. Group 1 (G1) = all things contributing to growth. Group 2 (G2) = all things inhibiting growth. Assuming none of these NCs are by themselves a SC (as that would defeat the point), would this not mean that if we meet all G1 NCs and the opposite of all G2 NCs (e.g. no infections), we would have a SC? I’m not sure, but it seems reasonable to me that if we have all NCs, that set of NCs is equal to an SC.
To return to your question, if B is the only NC, I think it is equal to a SC.
———
LSATscrub’s explanation misses the fact that your author states “only B is required” when LSATscrub states “assuming other things are necessary.”
Jerry’s lawgic translation is not entirely correct. I think a more accurate translation would be:
Required to join Army (RA) —> Man (M)
M —> RA
"Takes for granted that solely being a man is necessary for being required to join the army.”
=
Assumes that: only M is a NC for RA
Which is the original conundrum.
Note: Scored 170 on the June LSAT.
I agree with all the above posters. If you want to increase your speed without sacrificing accuracy, you must first focus on accuracy and proficiency, i.e., an in-depth blind review and post-blind-review.
As you are fluctuating in the mid 150s and low 160s, speed should definitely be secondary to accuracy.
In my personal experience, I experienced a boost in speed when I (1) Made sure I stuck to the time limits when taking PTs, which I didn’t do in my very early PTs. After being under time pressure, I learned to find the key phrases (especially in LR) much faster and give secondary importance to the rest. (2) Fully recognize that every wrong answer is wrong for a clear, definable, accurate reason. Perhaps you won’t find the right answer and eliminate all the wrong ones during the PT but during the blind review and the post-blind review you need to concretely see why every wrong answer is wrong as well as why the right answer is right.
RC is the area where speed can fluctuate the most, and it seems to be the area where you’re having the most trouble. Personally, I don’t use any notations as I’ve found they bring little value, take up a lot of time, and give me an excuse to forget what I’ve read.
These are my tips for RC speed:
Visualization is key to understanding. If you aren’t making vivid pictures in your brain, it’s going to be tough to remember what you’ve read in detail, and detail is key.
Ensure that you understand every sentence you read. If you start reading without understanding or get lost in thought, backtrack and read again.
I would practice trying to recall the structure and key ideas of the passage immediately after you’ve read it.
Finally, never forget that the RC text holds all the answers.