- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Is "it denies a claim that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning that it rejects" even grammatically correct? While doing this PT I knew the answer wasn't A, but I read E several times and failed to understand what it meant so had to go with the lesser evil instead. The language used in answer choice E is not decipherable.
#help (Added by Admin)
This explanation video took a whopping 14:10. On average, each question on LR allots 1:24, not taking into account the time it takes to bubble. Of course, the fluctuation of difficulties associated with each question means the 1:24 is approximate, but it takes the degree of intellectual sophistication and elaboration expressed in this video to get the right answer. How are we supposed to do that in 1:24? Now I'm guessing you're going to say to just practice, but this question, and other like it, are unique in its construction. Practice isn't going to prepare you for this kind of behemoth. What do?
I think in order for D to be right, it'd need to be written in the past tense, seeing as how the stimulus already concedes that this whole war thing happened in the past (and uses past tense to describe the affair). As it stands now, using present tense, D doesn't address what happened prior to the war; it only tells us what is happening right now. We still don't know whether it applied to pre-war times.
I think it's not so much stupid as it is crazy, as in that one crazy ex who happens to be an axe murderer crazy.
PoE refers to Path of Exile, an excellent video game in the same vein as Blizzard Entertainment's 2000 masterpiece Diablo 2.
But in this case, s/he's talking about PoE as in process of elimination.
@lindseyemitchell753 said:
@tristandesinor505 said:
Cooley offered me a full-ride plus room and board, so there's that. Now whether or not to take that....
Did you apply many other places? What would you ideally like to do with your law degree?
Not at all. I applied to a few schools here and there mostly as a joke, since my score was lackluster at best, so I'm taking LSAT again in Feb 2018.
Ideally, I'd like to work in international human rights, sort of like what Amal Clooney does (minus marrying a celebrity of course, though I might make an exception for my girl Emilia Clarke).
Cooley offered me a full-ride plus room and board, so there's that. Now whether or not to take that....
This argument sorts of commits circular reasoning, but I guess we gotta ruthlessly stick to the task at hand.
I feel like the LSAC can really take things to the next level by giving you a new parallel flaw question type (NOT parallel flawed method of reasoning) where both the stimulus and the correct AC are logically valid but factually incorrect, while all other ACs are either logically valid/factually correct, or logically invalid/factually incorrect.
Now that would be truly impressive.
@johntart139182 said:
@6400 said:
I'm team RC. The questions are whatever, but I LOVE reading the passages.
same here! I definitely love reading why corn is more productive than other crops and how riddled basins of attraction works!
'tis truly a shame isn't it. If we weren't under the gun, I believe the passages, by their own merits, would make for nice little relaxing reads on the john.
Note that theoretically C is still compatible with the stimulus' argument.
Those kids who sought membership on that school team could have leveraged the higher grades that they received (as a result of the intellectual improvements brought about via the experimental program) to sate the requirements of the higher GPA. There is absolutely nothing wrong there. Even if they didn't do so, the fact that they sought membership on the team afterwards only tangentially offers a potential explanation, and a far-fetched one at that too.
In years past we're explicitly told to never make assumptions that aren't there and not involve common sense (i.e. operate only on information that is given and not a shred more). But now, for both RC and to a lesser extent LR, one can no longer operate on that principle.
It seems like the present-day LSAT is testing a somewhat different, if only ever slightly so, thing than it used to test. But whatever it is, it's definitely not the same.
It's like this. You used to date this girl. Years later you two hook up again, only to find out she's not how she used to be. According to her friends and family, she's still the exact same person they've come to know and love, but you know for a fact that she's different. (I swear this example has absolutely nothing to do with the word "looser" I used to describe the LSAT.)
Has she really changed, or have you?
In talking about the first paragraph, JY claims that "the LSAT never just shits on something". But that's patently untrue; the LSAT has continually shitted on countless students' hopes and dreams throughout the decades.
Maybe it's just me, but as I've been going through the PTs, I've noticed that recent LSATs increasingly contain answers that are hard to like. By that I mean the correct answer to a question is the best fit out of the available ones, rather than a straight up good fit if, say, taken in a vacuum.
LR answers don't seem to be as logically tight as they used to be, and RC answers require more.... mental gymnastics than they did in the past. Whether that translates to a harder exam is anybody's guess.
I don't have much of the same sentiment re: LG. All I can say about them (again, purely my two cents) is they seem to be tough because of tedium more so than anything else, for recent games that is.
But then again, maybe I'm just trying too hard to see something that isn't there.
I feel like if many of these LSAT reading passages aren't on the LSAT, they'd make for very compelling, interesting, and enjoyable reads, such as this dual passage here.
Too bad the fact that we have to read them for the LSAT severely diminishes their enjoyability.
The "intermediary source" in B could potentially refer to Hanlon himself, since he is the intermediary between the phenomenon (spaceship) and the ultimate recipient (the newspaper).
But it's not the stress that reduces the pain; it's the uncertainty that reduces the pain. Incidentally that very uncertainty also causes the creation of stress.
In Q13, upon seeing D's "most effective" I crossed it out without a second thought. Again, in those LR analogy-type parallel reasoning questions, you'd cross out such an AC because of differing conclusions too. I guess the mindset really is different here.
In Q8, I thought "altering the landscape" was a bit too strong, but I guess in RC, perfect is the enemy of good.
For instance, in LR you can never assume that kind of interchangeability.
I got this question wrong because I didn't know that the word evidence meant reason.
Q15: "failed" to account for?
But they didn't fail to account for anything; they made an active decision not to account for those things because of mathematical modeling. To say they failed at account for.... would imply they attempted but couldn't do it, which just wasn't the case.
As well, the economists in question aren't referring to the ones mentioned in line 48 either; they're referring to the ones in the entirety of paragraph 4.
Given the LSAT writers'
sadismtrack record, I'm honestly surprised that answer B doesn't read "There exists a landmass off the coast of southeastern Africa that contains no indigenous primates that are diurnal higher primates."