User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT138.S1.P2.Q11
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Sunday, Jun 28 2020

Q 11, answer E

Aah! But there are harmful substances (other than secondary substances) referenced in the passage!

End of paragraph 2: "Some other secondary substances are not in themselves harmful, but...dissuade the insect from feeding by warning it of the presence of some other substance that is harmful."

AC E seems to be referencing these harmful substances. It seems reasonable to think that "harmful" and "toxic" are synonyms here, and that the toxic substances are made by the plant.

What makes AC E wrong, I think, is that we have no support for saying that the secondary substances and the toxins co-evolved! For all we know, they could have appeared in the plant millions of years apart. All we know is that there is a correlation in some plants between secondary substances and harmful substances - not how this correlation came about.

Another reason for skepticism is that some plants could have the secondary substance that signals poison, so insects avoid it, but actually be non-toxic. We see this kind of posturing in animals a lot.

PrepTests ·
PT153.S3.Q20
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Tuesday, Jun 23 2020

To get clear on what supports what, I try to rework the passage in my head using a simple "if...then" or "because" structure.

The passage could easily say: "Mining would force most local businesses to close, because many of them are dependent on the region's natural beauty. Therefore, mining would decrease the number of jobs in the region."

If we were to just take out the claim "many local businesses are dependent on the region's natural beauty," the main conclusion would hardly lose support, suggesting the claim is not a premise for the overall conclusion.

This argument, on the other hand, is so bad: "Many local businesses are dependent on the region's natural beauty. Therefore, mining would decrease jobs in the region."

We need the premise - "Mining would force most local businesses to close" - for the beauty claim to make sense. Since the claim cannot stand on its own, it is not a premise that supports the conclusion. It supports a premise for the overall conclusion.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Dec 23 2020

@ said: @ Wow! Congrats on your 180 that is so impressive and after reading your post very well deserved! I have a question for you, when you review do you write down explanations for every AC? I've been doing that and even for the questions I get right, I print out the exams, then write down underneath each question why 4/5 AC's were wrong and why the correct AC was correct. The downside to this obviously is that it takes SO LONG to go over a single test. I find it takes be between 2-3 days to go over one PT. Thank you in advance for any advice you have for me! Cheers!! :)

Thanks gittinazem! On difficult questions I sometimes used the notes feature or comments to type out an explanation, but most of the time I just thought through the question (why the right AC is right, why the wrong ACs are wrong) without writing anything down. The important thing for me was to feel like I really understood the question and ACs, and I could usually do that by thinking or following the video. I would do whatever medium works best for you! I'm sure everyone is different on this. Cheers:)

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Dec 23 2020

@ said:

One part that stuck out to me is your tip to stay motivated and star/BR only the questions that gave you trouble. For me, I notice I just tend to star... legit half the LR sections haha. I really try to follow the 100% confidence rule when starring. Granted not everything from the timed run is actually wrong, but I get SO exhausted BR-ing that I'm honestly starting to wonder how much I get out of it. If you went through this lack of confidence, how did you manage it and still study productively?

Thanks swanganie! I also star a ton, so I get it! I used stars to mark every question that I wanted to go back to if I had time, and I regularly starred over 10 questions on a section. Often I would double check an answer and un-star the question, leaving me with a handful of stars by the end.

I remember being exhausted by BR too! It's tough. In my first 30 tests I didn't get a single 180 BR. My strategy was to blind review things enough to create a "no excuses" mindset. If I missed a question after blind review, I wanted to feel like it was 100% my fault and that I had something to learn. I didn't want to feel like I missed a question in BR out of laziness or carelessness. My goal was to feel like I really endorsed all of the answers I chose, and really own up to it if I chose wrong. This didn't always mean that I had 100% confidence in all of my answers, but it was a very thorough review.

I'm also curious to know how much time in general you spent on BR vs in-depth review afterwards with correct explanation (+1 on @'s question on sources you prefer!). Thanks in advance if you have time to answer my questions!

I felt like I learned the most in post-BR reviewing. I probably spent 2-3x as long reviewing as I did blind reviewing–if I spent 3 minutes on a missed LR question in BR, I might spend 10 minutes watching the video, understanding where I went wrong, diagramming it, and internalizing the right answer. If I was less than 100% confident in a question but didn't star it or BR it, I would watch the video for it to make it super clear. (At the beginning of my studies this meant reviewing almost everything! At the end it meant reviewing maybe half of the test.)

Another thing I would do is open the videos for questions I missed without looking at the answers! Then I would try to anticipate the answer and explanation before watching the video.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Dec 23 2020

@ said:

Congrats, such a great story and achievement! Did you use 7Sage for LR and RC? I really like this platform for LG, but I've been relying on Powerscore for LR and Mike Kim for RC. Would be super grateful if you could share your strategies for LR and RC.

Thanks Bella:)

I used 7Sage for everything! 7Sage came highly recommended to me by several friends who used it to get 170+ scores, so I didn't bother looking elsewhere. For LR and RC, I felt like the core curriculum was more than enough to get me started off strong! What helped me improve from there was taking a lot of tests and learning from the questions themselves.

Also, on RC: how did you manage to speed through questions in less time since you focused on the passage? Is it because you had a better grasp of the structure and where different arguments/parts were from giving passages more time?

When I read passages too quickly I often got stuck because I was confused about ideas in the passage itself, not because the answer choices were that difficult. Having a solid understanding of the passage going in reduced the time I spent in confusion! It made me more confident about my answer choices and reduced the amount of time that I was rereading the passage or rereading answer choices in indecision. Ideally, I wouldn't go back to the passage at all.

PrepTests ·
PT119.S4.Q23
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Jul 22 2020

You can eliminate D for a different reason, I think -

"The fact that taller children often outperform other children at basketball does not show that height is a decisive advantage in basketball..."

My response to this conclusion was "duh." The fact that taller children often outperform in basketball does not mean that being tall is an advantage that decides the winner of the game. Being tall is important, but it's not that important.

Having a decisive advantage is huge - it means that the outcome is decidedly, guaranteed to be, or certainly in your favor. We're not trying to parallel anything decisive.

PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P4.Q20
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Monday, Jun 22 2020

q20:

Why I eliminated D: The standard theory of evolution also rests of circumstantial evidence, because in lines 45-47 we learn that "evolutionary mechanisms are never observed directly," and so circumstantial evidence is all we have to go on.

This implies that both the standard theory of evolution and Steele's neo-theory rely on circumstantial evidence. There is no other, better evidence. So the standard theory of evolution does not stand "in contrast" to Steele's theory on this point at all.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Monday, Dec 21 2020

@ said:

On your practice tests, were you simulating Flex or taking both sections of LR?

I simulated flex! I would do the three sections in one sitting and then take a break and do the other LR section later that day.

PrepTests ·
PT129.S2.Q13
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Saturday, Jun 20 2020

A says: Many teachers fear computers for the reason that they think more courses with fewer teachers will be taught. But there is no explanation for this phenomenon. There is no explanation of the reason for the specific fear. Why are they afraid for this reason? We don't know.

I read A to mean that the given phrase explains the observation "Teachers are afraid." But this is the wrong observation. "Teachers are afraid of computers for the reason that schools can teach more courses with fewer teachers" is the correct observation.

PrepTests ·
PT129.S3.Q22
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Friday, Jun 19 2020

B might have been more obvious if it had said "The positions held by the wealthy members of political parties might be different from the positions held by politicians," but it only imperfectly says this.

B assumes that the wealthy members of each party largely hold the views endorsed by their party. But this is a reasonable enough assumption.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Saturday, Dec 19 2020

@ said:

This supports my hypothesis that philosophy majors have a huge initial advantage on the LSAT.

If you can make sense of Heidegger, Kant, Hegel, and all those other guys then the obtuse wording and LSAT should come naturally for you, hahaha. Trying reading Heidegger makes my head hurt. I get like 20% of what he's saying tops even when I'm fully focusing. That's great training for the LSAT. I also wonder if math majors test higher than English majors (at least initially) since that discipline also takes more intellectual rigour than English/Poli-sci. The only thing is that maybe they're not as used to dealing with language as English majors.

I also know someone who's a double-stem/philo major (Bio). I'm sure curious how they would score on it. Like, shouldn't it be general knowledge which majors give you an advantage on the LSAT? I'm suprised we don't have stats!

Kind of makes me wish I studied more philo rather than English. Reading Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow probably bumped my diagnostic up like 5 points.

I scored a 151 on my diagnostic which I was deeply disappointed in (inflated ego). Tried to rationalize it to myself by saying that I was barely paying attention and didn't have any idea what I was in for since I decided I was interested in law like the day prior. That's what the test tests you for tho, so it was an accurate score. That humbled me. It felt like I got rejected by a lover, hahaha.

Anyways, I'm rambling. To finish things up, your GPA should not be counted against you since you were a stem/philo double major! Two extremely demanding majors! Hopefully the schools you're interested in take notice and give you a handsome scholarship! Good luck with apps and congrats on the 180!

Gotta admit that I've never read Heidegger, Kant, or Hegel—I'd probably be right there with you in understanding 20% of their writing. I would have to force myself to get through their work, so I haven't read them yet. I'm a fan of just reading what you want! (I am interested in philosophers who write about these three—like Parfit and Korsgaard!)

I think that modern philosophy might be better for LSAT prep than older stuff, since modern analytic philosophers tend to use a recognizable premise-conclusion structure. In this vein, I loved reading Parfit's Reasons and Persons, which was so delightful and challenging. And all of Robin Dembroff's work. And Nick Beckstead's dissertation. While I agree that philosophy is really good for LSAT prep, I also think it's just a fantastic major!

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, and gl on all the things! A 151 is a great place to begin studying, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were headed for a big score jump. :smile:

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Thursday, Dec 17 2020

@

I did the core curriculum all at once, but this wasn't a very deliberate decision! I started studying when 7Sage was still on their four-tier payment system, and so for the first month of studying I only had access to the core curriculum along with a handful of problem sets and 10 tests. Once I finished the core curriculum in Feb I upgraded to the full Ultimate+, which included everything. And yes—I spent a lot of time drilling LG and hard problem sets in between tests! Good luck in February:)

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Thursday, Dec 17 2020

@ said:

@ said:

a 164 diagnostic is nuts lol

This. I'd be interested to know if you feel anything predisposed you to that high a diagnostic. Awesome achievement nonetheless.

I realize that I'm an outlier here! Being a philosophy major and reading a lot, I think, was an incredible help. I already had a good handle on advanced sentence structures, and I was used to reading challenging philosophy papers with literal and precise claims. In some sense, I really started studying for the LSAT when I started reading philosophy.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Dec 16 2020

@ GPA solidarity! As for LR, I did eventually get to the point where I didn't read all of the answers if I was really confident in an answer choice (except for questions that felt like curve breakers). It also helped me to try to get through the first 10-12 questions in 10 minutes so that I had lots of time for q's 17-25. I starred any questions that I didn't know the answer to on the first read and then came back to them with the minutes I had at the end. Good luck with your studies!

User Avatar

Wednesday, Dec 16 2020

christinabarta1900

How I scored a 180

I scored a 180 on the July 2020 LSAT (it was my first time taking it) and I’m writing to share what I did. I was very encouraged by the 180 experiences that I had read online, and I wanted to write something similar before the memory faded away. If you’re reading this, hi! I’m so glad you’re here! I hope this helps.

Some background: I decided to go to law school during the summer before my junior year, and I wanted to go to a top school. As a double stem and philosophy major I had a GPA below every T-14 median, so I knew that I had to hit the LSAT out of the park.

I started studying in mid-December during winter break my junior year with a 164 diagnostic. I finished the core curriculum at the end of January and scored a 170 on my first post-curriculum PT. By mid-February, I started taking a full, timed practice test about every other week. I treated every practice test as a dress rehearsal—timed conditions, 15-minute break, printer paper and my favorite pens, a bottle of water. (I was prepared to switch over to pencil at some point, but I lucked out when the flex was announced. I got to use my pens the whole time!) I also practiced the first 30 tests I took with 33 instead of 35 minute sections, which helped me learn to pace myself. If I had a headache, wasn’t feeling my best, or really tired, I wouldn’t test. It was very important to me to try and simulate the headspace that I was going to be in during the test itself—practicing bad form, I thought, wasn't a good use of my time.

From February to about June I progressively went through the problems sets as I got better at them. I did most easy sets in Feb and saved the medium and hard sets for later in the spring. I gave myself 100% extra time during the difficult sets (I knew that I would have that kind of time for hard problems during the test) to really hone my intuition on rare problems.

In all, I took 49 practice tests. From late Feb-May, I took one about every other week (for maybe 20 tests). From mid-May (when the semester ended) to July 12th (my test date), I took another 29 (!) tests, about 3-5 each week. I do wish that I had done those first 30 practice tests earlier rather than back-ending my studying as much as I did, but it was workable. For me, taking tests was absolutely the best way to improve. I had a major breakthrough after taking 30 tests mostly because of improvement on LR. By 30 PTs, I began nailing obscure but recognizable question varieties (like certain types of flaws, subtleties in the causation questions, stuff like this). In the first 30 PTs I was usually scoring between 170-174. I staggered the tests so I was doing a mix of old and new, taking PT 41, 51, 61, 71, 81, and then 42, 52, 62, 72, 82, all the way through 49, 59, 69, 79, 89.

When I kicked my studying into high gear in late May, I was aiming for a 10-PT average of 177 (which was my avg BR score). I was taking summer classes and I studied for 1-6 hours a day depending on what I felt I could do productively. I got a 177 average by mid-June and was consistently scoring scoring 173-179. I scored my first 180 in July, ten days before I was slated to test, and my second 180 a few days after that.

Even though I was doing so many tests, I never came close to burnout. I think this was because I never forced myself to study—if I needed a day off, I would take one. Besides that, I felt really absorbed in my studying, like I was learning something new or doing something productive the whole time. I really cannot thank 7Sage enough for this. The videos (which I always watched on double speed), the gamified analytics bar, and the really lovely testing and BR interface made it so freaking easy to study, and I felt like I was always making the most of my time.

I think the thing that really got me through the blind reviewing was the sense that all of the questions are doable, and all of the answers are clear. I absolutely refused to write off difficult questions as oddballs or one-offs, and I spent time in BR internalizing all of the answers so that they seemed completely, patently obvious to me. (Sometimes this meant spending 15 minutes on an LR question. Rarely, it meant spending an hour on an RC question.) If I wasn’t satisfied with the explanations already in the comments, sometimes I would add my own.

Speaking of blind reviewing, here are some things I did by section:

LG: I would do all the games again in BR. At first this meant figuring games out for the first time and correcting lots of mistakes or (for the tricky ones) finding a better way to organize things. When I got better at games this meant redoing the games quickly to sanity-check my answers, and redoing the hard ones until they felt easy (maybe 2-3 times).

LR: Taking 30+ tests really, really helped me improve on this section. At one point it was my best, and I consistently missed zero or one. After 30 practice tests I would thoroughly blind review only the questions I starred or missed since I felt comfortable about all the others. (Again, staying motivated meant using my time really productively! I didn’t BR questions that I was confident in.)

RC: This was an absolute beast for me, and it took me a long time to improve. Even up until my test date I was missing 1-4 questions on this section. What helped me improve from 3-7 missed to 1-4 missed was to force myself to spend 2.5-4 minutes on the passage (longer than felt natural) really absorbing all of the structure, and then answering the questions somewhat quickly. The main reason this helped was that I could remember where to look for details when questions asked for them rather than guessing or rereading whole paragraphs. (Speeding through was very difficult because I would often feel super unconfident on many of my answers, but it was still the best strategy.) In BR, I spent a lot of time internalizing the differences between the best AC and worse ACs on the confusing curve-breaker questions, and this helped me miss fewer of them.

About a month before the test I changed my schedule to include a morning routine. I got used to doing an exercise routine, eating lunch, and then sitting down to do a test, taking it at about the same time during the day that my actual test was scheduled for. (The workout was a lifesaver on test day since I was so full of white hot terror that I needed something to distract me!)

On test day, I get a decent sleep and wake up full of jitters. I do an extra-long exercise routine to help keep myself busy, eat a pasta lunch, and sit down for the flex test. Despite feeling prepared I am visibly shaking and can’t think lucidly because I am so nervous. Thankfully my first section is logic games. I crank through the first three games, and I calm down gradually as I take the test. The last game is wickedly difficult and my nerves didn’t leave me with a lot of extra time. I leave the section highly unconfident on one question and shaky on maybe three. (I still think that I did miss that one question, but everyone’s allowed one miss).

The next section is LR, and it’s a relatively easy section. I get through it with a bit of time to spare, and very quickly double-check all of my starred questions (the one question I am least confident about is a strangely worded number 7, oddly enough—I must have spent three minutes on it).

The final section is RC, and I only just finish the section (I almost always take up the full time on RC, and I practiced with the expectation that I wouldn't have time to double-check anything) but I feel pretty good about it.

And so I got a 180. It took a lot of studying and a lot of luck—things likely would have turned out differently if I had gotten a RC right off the bat or if I had really fudged that last logic game. But my preparation helped me muscle-memory my way through the test even with such terrible nerves—I could really fall back on hardened pattern-recognition. (The LSAT is a very learnable test!) I didn’t set out to get a 180, and I always knew that it was unlikely. My aim was to study enough to consistently hit a challenging but achievable “goal range,” which in my case was 175-180. I could have just as easily gotten any of those scores or lower.

On another note, my lovely partner was studying for the LSAT at the same time that I was. Early on we made the decision not to share any of our practice test scores besides vague reports, like “I got a new high score!” or “I scored in my goal range!” This turned out to be a really great decision! It freed us from comparing ourselves, and it allowed us to be really supportive. (We celebrated the heck out of our scores together when it was all over, though! They ended up with a 177!)

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Sunday, Jul 12 2020

LG-LR-RC

I was so nervous during logic games that I barely finished!

I had TV v. print media, 7 semesters + classes, product development, officer departments, and inspections. Inspections was the most difficult for me, and I didn't have time to check over my answers there.

For LR, I couldn't for the life of me figure out one about bats and echolocation - the rest were manageable, though I flagged more than usual and only had time to double check a few (I avg 0-2).

RC is normally my worst section, but I felt very confident on it this time. I had incentives in housing markets, assemblages, bailiff boxes, and invasive species.

PrepTests ·
PT155.S3.P1.Q2
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Saturday, Jul 11 2020

Tip for flex test takers:

You can use ctrl+f to search the passage! I found myself stuck on question four (ugh, I just didn't remember the detail in parentheses) but I could have searched eg "1915" to eliminate A, "director" to eliminate B, and "minutes" or "hours" to find the detail in C.

PrepTests ·
PT155.S2.Q26
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Saturday, Jul 11 2020

The only two questions I missed in this section were this one and Q15, and I want to pass on a general weakening question lesson since I missed both of them for the very same reason:

The key to eliminating C in this weakening question is to realize that we are comparing large, unarmored lake stickleback to their armored selves, not to ocean stickleback. B is right because it offers a competing hypothesis explaining the difference between the two groups of lake stickleback.

In Q15, we have a weakening question with the exact same trap answer choice. In that question, we are comparing teenagers who drink caffeine to teenagers who do not drink caffeine, and the trap answer choice offers a competing hypothesis that compares caffeinated teens to the population at large. The correct answer choice offers a competing hypothesis explaining the difference between the groups of teenagers.

In both cases, trap answer choices target a misunderstanding of the two groups we should be comparing, and the correct answers offer us a competing hypothesis focused on the two groups in question.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Friday, Sep 11 2020

sorry one more question--do you usually have time for a second round to check out the flagged questions? Or do you rely on your intuition to be good enough the first time around?

This is a late reply, but for posterity:

I move on from each question with the expectation that I won't have time to go back, and I nearly always cut timing pretty close (with 1-2 minutes to spare on a good day).

My score improved once I stopped marking questions lazily with the thought that "oh, I'll just come back to it." That said, there are normally a few questions that I feel very uncertain about (even after blind review), but when timed I move on once I think I've chosen thoughtfully.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Friday, Sep 11 2020

Woof, what a wicked sentence. It helped me to read it like this:

The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either: (1) possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or (2) where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur.

PrepTests ·
PT151.S2.Q8
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Saturday, Jul 11 2020

Absolutely bamboozled. Not only did I stop reading after sentence two thinking it was the MP, I prephrased the answer choice in my head, picked it, congratulated myself for saving so much time on this question, and moved on. Ouchie

PrepTests ·
PT131.S3.Q21
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Tuesday, Jul 07 2020

Additional reason to throw out C:

We don't really know what the designers would have or wouldn't have proposed. We just know what was eventually designed. Even if designers had foreseen that QWERTY was a bad keyboard for future typewriters, maybe they still would have proposed it, along with a better design to be used in the future.

In general, it's hard to support claims about specific counterfactual what-would-have-happened scenarios like C. E doesn't really make a claim about what would have happened at a specific moment in time, but instead what would have resulted given different design constraints.

Importantly, I think E could still work if it were phrased in future tense - for example:

If a keyboard layout were to be designed for computers, it would not be designed to limit typing speed.

PrepTests ·
PT131.S2.Q18
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Monday, Jul 06 2020

Contrary to Malthus' arguments, human food capacity etc etc etc.

The author admits that the current situation is really, truly bad for Malthus' arguments, not that the current situation merely appears bad but actually strengthens his argument.

Despite such direct counterevidence, the author says Malthus might yet be vindicated in the future. The author is just barely saving Malthus' prediction from the depths of wrong oblivion by giving us a reason to believe famine could still happen.

PrepTests ·
PT131.S2.Q15
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Monday, Jul 06 2020

Anarchy is defined very precisely, twice. This should have been a red flag.

In BR, reading the first and last sentences and just ignoring the middle part makes it clear that the author inappropriately redefines anarchy as the support for their conclusion.

User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Aug 05 2020

My scores improved by 2-3 points (now I usually miss 0-3 per section) when I began spending more time on the passage. After I committed to spending 3+ minutes (occasionally a little less) reading, and/or rereading, and summarizing, lingering on questions became rare.

In BR, I really, really took the time to 100% understand why right answer choices were right, and what made other ACs worse. This helped sharpen my intuition, and I usually get flagged questions right!

PrepTests ·
PT154.S2.Q24
User Avatar
christinabarta1900
Wednesday, Jul 01 2020

There are (at least) two scenarios that C suggests.

The first scenario is that the self-portrait patiner (I'll call him Leo) used live models to stand in for the historical battle figures he was painting. It's not like he got the exact figures to stand for him - it's a heroic historical battle. The people in the battle were probably dead, famous, or otherwise unavailable to stand for some random young artist. So if Leo used live figures, he still needed to paint some models to resemble other people - the historical people. While he was at it, he could have painted a model to resemble him, too.

The second scenario is that Leo modeled for whoever happened to paint the historical battle. This also might explain why his likeness is in the painting.

The thing is, C doesn't give us a reason to prefer the second scenario over the first. But D does. D gives us a reason to believe that Leo was not the artist. C is equally compatible with Leo being the artist and Leo not being the artist.

Confirm action

Are you sure?