Subscription pricing
For both questions, the task is the same-look for the option will make the conclusion 100% true?
PT Questions
colbyyuan566
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
colbyyuan566
Saturday, Dec 30 2023
Mistook it as necessary assumption, darn.
colbyyuan566
Tuesday, Dec 19 2023
Wow a really great question. You have to pay attention to words like "certain" and "most". If not, B will sound pretty good.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Dec 18 2023
18 is ridiculous. The public has no interest in knowing the corrupt moral code of a prominent politician? LMAO. Whoever designs this question has some very questionable moral standards, or even contemptible standards, so to speak.
colbyyuan566
Friday, Dec 15 2023
Man this is so much easier if we understand it as a weaking question. Which option would most seriously weaken the argument/What is the biggest flaw in this argument? Then it's pretty obvious A. Sure, some other options can weaken/have flaws as well, but A is obviously the most powerful one.
colbyyuan566
Friday, Dec 15 2023
Damn this question is clever. It's not a particularly hard question, but disguised the major flaw very well.
colbyyuan566
Wednesday, Jan 10 2024
I thought mammalian refers to things about mammoth and then I got so confused when I thought it suddenly pivoted to mammals in general and immediately ruled out A. Darn.
colbyyuan566
Wednesday, Jan 10 2024
"circumscribed set of themes" LMAO. That's the most lawyerly language I've ever encountered.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 08 2024
Um what? "But this being always and immediately gets whatever it wants. Therefore, it’s never in need of discovering means to ends." How does this even compute? The child born to the richest parent on earth who gives him whatever he wants whenever he wants is necessarily a dumb idiot? A spoiled brat never reads, never learns? Is that what we are assuming here? "Means to ends" is defined as "a thing that is not valued or important in itself but is useful in achieving an aim", ok? Why would someone who always immediately get what he wants won't discover it? He can read about it, he can learn about it in the world, can't he?
colbyyuan566
Sunday, Jan 07 2024
I don't think JY is interpreting B correctly.
The argument and assumption goes as follows:
Assumption 1: Bigger size is good compared to smaller size, considering all scenarios.
2. Therefore, since armour limits growth, armour is bad compared to without armour, considering growth.
3. Therefore, bigger size is a better defence than armour.
If the assumptions are valid, then it is perfectly good argument. Weakening the argument essentially means introducing additional scenarios that will attack the assumptions.
C, if anything, strengthens the argument by adding a scenario that makes the argument stronger(introduces predators for which lake fish doesn't need armour)
B, on the other hand, introduces us a scenario in which SMALLER size is better for survival. If being smaller actually help them survive better in the winter, then the argument falls apart. Isn't it better to be small, predator free and higher winter survival rate than being big, predator free and lower winter survival rate? Amour, in this scenario, actually help their survival. So larger size is a worse defence than armour.
colbyyuan566
Sunday, Jan 07 2024
Damn, I misread "testing the same diagnosis" as "running the same test" and I thought, how in the world am I supposed to know whether I need to assume if one same test can rule out different symptoms.
colbyyuan566
Saturday, Jan 06 2024
Ok, so what if it's toxic? It can be toxic to mice or roaches for all we know. A lot of GMO plants are designed to be toxic to insect predators. And it certainly doesn't address the issue whether the risk can be offset.
In addition, the argument is based on the fact that scientist only need to modify one specific gene, and C establishes that it is impossible to do so because they don't know the exact location of the genes that they want to modify. So the argument falls apart for some plans and animals.
If C fails because of "some", not "all", then D also fails because of "there are", not "all".
I feel like this is just another example of test designers being bad at science stuff.
colbyyuan566
Saturday, Jan 06 2024
How in the world is "far from universal" an "evidence"? Seriously?
colbyyuan566
Wednesday, Jan 03 2024
I think C just switches the personal investment as a necessary condition to a sufficient condition. Sure, it can enhance scientific rigor, as demonstrated by the case in point, but the article does not support it being sufficient.
colbyyuan566
Wednesday, Jan 03 2024
"In general", totally ignored the term's context. Darn.
colbyyuan566
Wednesday, Jan 03 2024
Wow whoever designed Q19 is a giant loser.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
#6 doesn't make any sense. The article pretty explicitly stated that record company ditched new music and new artists in favor of old music BECAUSE of profit driven considerations: "economics irresistible", "far more profitable", etc. How is that classicism? It's capitalism, if it counts any "ism".
Capitalism: if old music are good, then we shouldn't wase money on investing in young talent. That's what actually being stated.
Classicism: Old music are just better than young talent in too many ways.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
If we assumes D's result of over-reporting can be applied universally, then why can't we assumes C's result of under-reporting can also be applied? Those highly motivated just don't report their increase of exercise and therefore, skews the result. Sure, for it to weaken the argument that watching yourself workout does not actually make you work out more, those highly motivated need to be over-represented in one specific group. However, as long as the result is skewed, then the reasoning can't be correct, one way or another.
Ok, assuming we can't know for certain which scenario C is actually referring to and thus not weaken the argument, then why can we know for sure over-report in reading is meant to be able to apply to workout scenario?
Furthermore, I can just as well say, twins over-report in reading studies. Ok, who cares? How does it relate to an workout study? Why are we assuming over-report in different studies are related?
I call bull on this question.
#help (Added by Admin)
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
I don't think the issue here is whether the author is only committed to conclude about their current voting patterns. It doesn't matter. The question is about why the REASONING is flawed, not why the conclusion is flawed.
Yes, for the conclusion to be flawed, the reasoning necessarily includes the assumption that voting patterns among age groups will change in the future. If it assumes the other way, then the conclusion is right, despite a flawed reasoning.
However, it's not about the conclusion's validity. Even if the reasoning process took into consideration that voting patterns among age groups will change, despite the argument being valid or not, it does not change the fact that the reasoning made a improper comparison.
If the stem changes to "the conclusion is unfounded" because... then E would definitely be the better answer. But it's not. It's asking the reasoning process.
To sum up, the conclusion is wrong because it inherently overlooks the possibility that voting patterns among age groups will change in the future. The reasoning process is wrong because it compares an early stage of one generation to a later stage of another.
LSAT is less concerned with whether conclusion and more concerned with whether the argument's conclusion logically follows from its premises.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
Yikes, word play. Got it wrong, but kind of love this question LOL.
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
Seriously? "He and his colleagues claim to have found evidence for a Lamarckian hereditary mechanism in the immune system." Lamarckian hereditary mechanism=acquired traits can be passed on to future generations. It literally means they claim to have evidence of acquired traits can be passed on to future generations in immune system and that is literally E. And how does an artificially facilitated reverse transcription process help explain what's happening in nature? We can clone animals and is that supposed to help prove my claim that animal cloning is also happening in the nature ? I'm so freaking pissed. Does LSAC even know science at all?
colbyyuan566
Monday, Jan 01 2024
Dumb questions. Q5 says truly national means diversity of views and tastes, but Q7 says it means spreading out through the country? LMAO yeah right.
I hate science. Had to spend 10 minutes in blind review to even understand what it is talking about.