User Avatar
christinajooce205
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT23.S2.Q13
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Aug 01 2024

I skimmed past A and then made the silly assumption that being qualified is the same as not being barred when I read C :((

1
PrepTests ·
PT105.S2.Q24
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Tuesday, Jul 30 2024

When the stimulus said "but not consumed", I thought that meant that the amount of coal of coal they were talking about was the amount of coal they dug up never used any of it, like how squirrels would hoard nuts. I was so confident that the correct AC would be A because it never mentioned the idea of consuming the coal. I feel so stupid now.

4
PrepTests ·
PT18.S2.Q20
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Tuesday, Jul 30 2024

He's making up a scenario that applies the premise "a higher proportion of water molecules containing oxygen-18 than all water molecules containing ordinary oxygen descends to earth".

30% is higher than 20% (keep in mind that these proportions are still made up). 30% of 100 is 30 while 20% of 900 is 180.

1
PrepTests ·
PT21.S2.Q6
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Friday, Jul 26 2024

I thought that B might be too strong, like a sufficient assumption. Couldn't A work as a necessary assumption?

1
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Jul 25 2024

Could an assumption be both necessary and sufficient or are they two totally separate things? I'm trying to think of a possibility where they could overlap, but haven't really thought of one so far.

0
PrepTests ·
PT18.S2.Q3
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Tuesday, Jul 23 2024

The fact that this is only the third question of the real section hurts me

1
PrepTests ·
PT18.S2.Q3
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Tuesday, Jul 23 2024

Got E the first time, and then I fixed it during my BR. Not sure if my reasoning is completely accurate, but here was my thought process going through the answer choices, A last.

B- "Most of the eligible voters in Morresville vote in the upcoming election"

Why is it wrong?

The number of people voting doesn't matter. Regardless the number of people voting, if enough of them choose to vote for the incumbents that are ruining the city, then the conclusion doesn't follow.

C- "Few of the incumbents on the Mooresville city council have run for reelection in precious elections

Why is it wrong?

Regardless of whether they ran or not in the past, it doesn't necessarily follow that they will are going to serve the interest of the people in the city in their next term.

D- "All of the seats on the Mooresville city council are filled by incumbents whose terms are expiring"

Why is it wrong?

Terms expire eventually, but does that mean that these incumbents are going to serve the interest of the people now? Nothing in the stimulus points to that.

E- "None of the challengers in the upcoming election for seats on Mooresville's city council are better able to serve the interest of their neighborhoods than were the incumbents"

Why is it wrong?

This statement can be also translated as, "If you are a challenger running and able to better serve the interest of the neighborhood, then you are NOT the incumbents". This goes against what the argument in the stimulus was trying to get at, because the one that they want to vote for IS an incumbent, just specifically one with local experience at a specific neighborhood.

A- "at least some other voters in Mooresville do not make the same exception for their own incumbent in the upcoming election"

Why is this RIGHT?

The argument in the stimulus is trying to get to the point that people should not be voting for their local incumbents, but rather more people should be voting for this specific incumbent in this neighborhood. If some voters are not voting for their incumbent for their neighborhood, then they could be voting for the incumbent that the author wants you to be voting for- not your incumbent, but theirs.

1
PrepTests ·
PT23.S2.Q8
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Jul 18 2024

Totally made the assumption that viceroy butterflys aren't toxic because they didn't eat milkweed plants. Should have realized that when reading answer choice D. Feeling really stupid rn ;-;

1
PrepTests ·
PT101.S3.Q19
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Wednesday, Jul 17 2024

Some and most statements don't have contrapositives! The stimulus only gave information of what is true for some students with part time jobs. This could mean that we only have information about one or two people of a group of a hundred students who have part time jobs. We just don't have enough information to do contrapositives for some and most statements.

1
PrepTests ·
PT102.S3.Q21
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Wednesday, Jul 17 2024

Usually I don't watch all of the explanation videos, especially when I think I understand them, but boy oh boy am I glad I stuck around for "boners for Homer"

1
PrepTests ·
PT103.S2.Q23
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Saturday, Jul 13 2024

Just realized how similar choice D is actually to choice B. After rereading it, I see why D is not the right choice now :(

0
PrepTests ·
PT112.S1.Q6
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Aug 03 2023

Omg I missed that the stimulus said "it is likely that common wisdom has mistaken". ;-; I went for A and was so confident about it, but now I see that A is too strong of an answer choice.

4
PrepTests ·
PT125.S4.Q11
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Aug 03 2023

#help

Did anyone else choose A and not fully satisfied with the reason JY gave to explain why it is not the main conclusion?

I can see why C is not wrong. It has the idea about there being less carnivorous mammals while the number of reptiles are the same in Australia compared to other continents. It also tacks on the idea that the sparseness is the cause of this phenomena. I really don't understand how that is not sub conclusion/major premise.

From my understanding, I thought that the idea of the sparse ecosystem supports the idea that there are less carnivorous mammals, thus being a sub conclusion/major premise. Can someone please explain how this is more than just a sub conclusion, but actually the main conclusion?

2
PrepTests ·
PT125.S4.Q11
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Aug 03 2023

I think what differentiates answer choice C and E is that E only says that there is a relative disadvantage for carnivorous mammals than reptiles. However, the main conclusion isn't purely about having a disadvantage (rather having a disadvantage is a premise that supports the main conclusion that there are less carnivorous mammals in Australia). To make E correct, you would need to assume that purely having a disadvantage is enough to explain the phenomena that there are less mammals.

However, C explicitly states that the sparseness is probable the reason for there to be less carnivorous mammals. No assumptions have to be made, making C a stronger answer choice than E.

4
PrepTests ·
PT117.S2.Q16
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Aug 03 2023

Something that helps me distinguish a major premise and the main conclusion isn't to solely rely on indicator words, but also compare the two and see which statement supports the other. If it is a premise, despite also being a sub-conclusion, it should be able to support and explain why the main conclusion is true.

For this case, the idea of there being a crucial distinction that some of the economists missed supports the main conclusion that their theory is incorrect, but rather the supporters of democracy can also support market regulation. In other words, the fact that the economists missed this distinction (premise) led to an incorrect conclusion which the author proves wrong (main conclusion). However, the main conclusion doesn't necessarily support the premise. The fact that democrats could also support regulated markets doesn't support the idea that the economists missed the distinction between people as consumers and voting citizens.

6
PrepTests ·
PT23.S3.Q24
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Monday, Jul 31 2023

In case anyone else would like a slightly alternative explanation, I'm going to write down my thoughts after spending an agonizing time trying to understand what each answer choice actually means and why all of the are wrong, except C. Please feel free to add on or correct me because I probably made a mistake somewhere lol.

TLDR: Answers A and B are wrong by contradicting the same premise in the stimulus. Answers D and E are also wrong by going outside of the scope of the stimulus. Answer C correctly restates the conclusion which has double negatives on the necessary condition.

Stimulus summary:

-End of the action is the INTENDED OUTCOME (not any other coincidental byproduct of what happens afterwards in reality).

-Sometimes, and possibly every time, intentions cannot justify the means (the actions you did to achieve your goal)

-Conclusion: Nothing could justify your actions except your intentions

Why answer choice A (The value of some ends may justify any means) is wrong:

The stimulus directly stated that it is possible that there is NO ends to which the value could justify every means. Choice A would directly contradict this premise that we must assume to be true.

Why answer choice B (One could always justify an action by appealing to the value of its intended outcome) is wrong:

Similar to choice A, it contradicts the given premise that it is possible that there are no actions that could be justifiable despite appealing to intentions.

Why answer choice D (Only the values of by-products can justify that action) is wrong:

The stimulus directly stated that the end of the action is the intended action, NOT the by-products. D is wrong because we have no idea about what is true for anything related to by-products.

Why is answer choice E (Nothing can justify the intentions except the value of the actions actual outcomes) wrong:

Similar to why D is wrong, it focuses on the wrong idea of the idea of "actual outcomes", equivalent to by-products. The stimulus does not focus on actual outcomes, but INTENTIONS. Leading to why...

Answer choice C (one can justify an action only by appeal to the value of intended outcomes) is correct because

This answer choice could be translated to: If you can justify -> you are appealing to the value of intentions.

This is the same idea as what the conclusion stated: "Nothing can justify you actions except your intentions." Double negate the necessary conditions and you get: "If you can justify your actions -> you appeal to your intentions".

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S4.Q10
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Friday, Jul 21 2023

rip so I did over think and also made an incorrect assumption ;-; Thanks for the explanation :D

1
PrepTests ·
PT114.S4.Q10
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Jul 20 2023

I'm not sure if I'm over thinking this question, but I thought that D was incorrect because it would generalize the statement to all workers. Isn't this implying that all workers would be less satisfied despite not being directly affected? For example, would workers really be less satisfied with their job if they are doing a super unique job that could not be replicated by a computer?

I answered C because it directly mentioned workers who would be directly impacted by the technological progress. I think I understand why it is considered wrong because the stimulus didn't provide enough proof to support that a worker would necessarily oppose technological progress. However, I'm still not fully confident in understanding why D should be correct if it is so generalized.

#help

2

I'm currently in the middle of the course curriculum and have gotten a few (too many) questions wrongs on some of the drills and practice questions in the middle of the lessons. I've reattempted some LG drills consecutively because I wanted to drill in the inferences that I've failed to make before. Although I've noticed improvement in my time and accuracy with each new clean attempt, I'm worried that this is only because I have been working on the same game with only an hour break in between, and I'm getting the question right only because I've seen the question and correct answer before. In other words, I'm worried that my studying method is not the most optimal use of my time and resources because I think I've memorized the specific games and rules by rote memorization rather than learning how to make inferences faster for new games on tests.

While I mostly focused on the instance for LG, I was wondering if I should have a longer cool down period of revisiting the same drills for other practice sections and drills too. I'll try to revisit them again after a week or so, but I'm also worried that I just don't have a lot of time for the upcoming test in October ;-;

0
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Friday, Jun 16 2023

I'd also love to join this group chat!

0
User Avatar
christinajooce205
Thursday, Jun 15 2023

I am interested in joining the study group as well! :)

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?