Discussions

cbrodie1734

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT113.S1.P2.Q13

cbrodie1734

Saturday, Jul 22 2023

If it lends any credibility, I have an M.S. in Biotechnology and have been required to read a vast number of semi-indecipherable scientific studies over the years. I still chose (E) in both takes, though I hated myself and felt tangible pain clicking the next button both times after internally debating how the LSAT writers would define/compare "physical process" and "scientific theory" until my brain was numb.

That being said, in retrospect I feel that, if you have to choose between these answers, it certainly makes sense that you should choose (A). A "scientific theory describing a phenomenon" is essentially what Curie had discovered or already known by the time she arrived at this crossroads of fully explaining radiation in the final sentence of the first paragraph. She generally understood what radiation was to the point that she was moving on to other aspects of it such as isolating individual radioactive elements, questioning the rate(s) of radioactive emission, and noting what happens to the rate of radiation if the materials are heated or dissolved. The sentence surrounding "mechanism" is basically saying that, while she understood what was scientifically occurring at a broader scale with these radiating elements, she did not understand what was (physically) different between the radiating and non-radiating elements. The first sentence of the next paragraph and context from the final paragraph answer this question. The mechanism she was trying to postulate was that "radiation occurs when certain isotopes decay.." and "radiation occurs because the atoms themselves lose mass", and these are explanations of physical processes underlying our understanding of radiation, not broad scientific theories describing radiation (energy given off by matter in the form of rays or high-speed particles). She was unable to put together the nuts and bolts of the natural phenomena, while she knew effectively what was going on at a higher level. I also feel that "describing" is a substantially looser and more high-level term than "underlies".

PrepTests ·

PT139.S4.Q19

cbrodie1734

Saturday, Dec 16 2023

D is incorrect because the odds of winning/collecting are already directly taken into account in calculating the average payoff for either outcome. So it is essentially just restating a factor that is known from the stimulus.

PrepTests ·

PT130.S3.Q23

cbrodie1734

Wednesday, Aug 09 2023

Another important fact about AC A: “A weaker correlation (melatonin/inducement) was found in the studies that included people with insomnia than in the studies that did not” could very well be negated of nearly any importance depending on the composition of the two study groups. For example, if all the weak correlation insomnia groups only contained 1 insomnia patient and 200 non-insomniacs, does the weaker correlation really mean anything? Similarly, it says nothing about who the data corresponds to. While the groups with insomniacs presented a weaker correlation, maybe that’s simply because the non-insomniacs of the groups didn’t respond to melatonin whatsoever (in which case the insomniacs very well could have responded by falling immediately asleep). This wouldn’t strengthen the argument (“this does not mean melatonin is helpful in treating insomnia”) at all.

PrepTests ·

PT140.S1.Q12

cbrodie1734

Friday, Dec 08 2023

In my opinion, the important differentiator between C and B is how the word “relatively” is used. In B, it is saying that, similar to the case of the stimulus, they are comparing normal winters to “relatively” milder ones within the same geographic area. In C, they are comparing areas of the Rocky Mountains where winters are “relatively” mild compared to entirely different areas where they are regularly colder. This comparison has no bearing whatsoever on whether a future increase in temperature in one location would result in the melting of the snowpack, spring flooding, etc. The conditions and circumstances are completely separate between the two locations. Of course, C also doesn’t speak to all the major variables involved in the argument.

PrepTests ·

PT109.S4.Q14

cbrodie1734

Monday, May 08 2023

This is the only question/answer which has made absolutely no sense to me. For reference, I chose B. First of all, I don't understand why it matters at all whether the plowing is done at night or in the morning. I initially crossed both A and B out because the stimulus includes no reference whatsoever to this variable. In terms of PDFS (prolonged daylight followed by sun), why would it matter at all whether (in the course of 24 hours), the seeds are plowed at night or the day? If they are plowed at night, do they mysteriously sink to the Earth's core by the time the sun rises? Thus, isn't it much more feasible/obvious to say B? Clearly, if the field is not plowed at all, the seeds will never experience sunlight/PDFS, and will produce fewer growing plants than if it is plowed only at night (and, god forbid, the seeds have to wait 8 hours for morning sunlight). They would still remain in prolonged darkness until sunlight occurs. Am I "assuming" something ridiculous or missing something altogether here?

#help (added by Admin)

LSAT · ⚖ Official September 2023 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖

cbrodie1734

Friday, Sep 08 2023

So I was told the Prometric issue occurred at all testing sites..?

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q8

cbrodie1734

Friday, May 05 2023

I started out with D and switched it to A during my Blind Review. Was a bit confused, as (1) nowhere within the stimulus does it explicitly mention the goal of losing weight (obviously you can extrapolate it from the "low-fat diet", but I thought we weren't supposed to do so..) and (2) following the similar beginning of "limit/avoid consumption of simple carbs", it mentions the energy levels which are also key to the discussion on insulin (I read it as "people should avoid simple carbs if they want to maintain the same energy levels", i.e. not exercise or heighten energy expenditure so insulin doesn't turn them into fat). Am I starting to lose it? Just seemed more concise and on-topic to me.

General

•

Thursday, Nov 02 2023

cbrodie1734

Drop in 2nd LSAT Score - Cancel?

Apologize in advance for the number of "should I cancel?" posts likely to arise after the score release yesterday, but I haven't been able to find any direction for my specific scenario. After taking the test in September and receiving a 169, I just received a 165 on the October exam. I completely understand that these are both great scores, but, given my situation and family obligations, I really need to strive for every single dollar I can possibly receive from law schools to alleviate the financial burden.

Question is - Do you think it would be smart to cancel the 165, given that I already have a higher score? Or is it not worth it with respect to how admissions officers will generally view a cancellation? Any help would be highly appreciated. Taking the test again next week and hoping/planning to score in the mid-170s.