coleknight42

Joined: Mar 2026
Subscription: Core

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided Goal score: 180

CAS GPA

3.8

1L START YEAR

2028

Applications

Columbia

In process

Harvard

In process

Northwestern

In process

Stanford

In process

UChicago

In process

UPenn

In process

Yale

In process

Discussions

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q15

coleknight42

Tuesday, May 12

@coleknight42 Also! While I'm at it! Answer A implies another factor other than the ad campaign caused the sales drop. How else would sales have dropped even further without the ad campaign? It had to have been external economic circumstances, an irreparably poor reputation for the company, an unrelated scandal, something like that.

So the explanation that AC B is correct because we need to disrupt the causal link between the ad campaign's inefficacy and the poor sales in order to weaken the argument applies just as strongly to A as well.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q15

coleknight42

Tuesday, May 12

Just not seeing how all of the arguments being made against AC A aren't also arguments against AC B.

Argument against A (which I don't even find illegitimate) seems basically to be: 'An ad campaign can be ill conceived even if it literally is on net better for your sales than if you hadn't done it'

But how is an even stronger version of that argument not that 'an ad campaign can still be ill conceived even if there are other factors that contribute to your sluggish sales'

Assuming what is being taken for granted in A is NOT true (ie, assuming that sales would have been even worse without the ads) then we can see that the ad campaign was objectively directionally good, even if it wasn't as good as some idealized other option that the prompt doesn't even really imply exists. (Contrary to what one user below me said, nowhere in the prompt does it say that the consultant promoted his own campaign. He was literally just hating on the competitor's campaign.)

On the other hand, assuming that what is being taken for granted in B is true (ie, assuming that there are other factors that may have caused low sales figures) there is no evidence of the directionality of the ad campaign. It may have still been a terrible ad campaign that exacerbated the already unfavorable economic conditions of the company.

I feel like both answers would be right 99% of the time, but I'm struggling to see why, on the margins, A isn't slightly better, unless we're really supposed to answer based on the idea that the 'advice of a competing consultant' regarding advertising does not amount to it being 'the competitor's advertising campaign' because the competitor might not have invented it, which is an explanation that I have a great, great deal of trouble imagining being what the LSAT writers had in mind.

General

•

Monday, Apr 20

coleknight42

LR/RC Practice Balance

Hi everyone! I’m wondering whether there is a way to adjust the balance of LR vs RC drills in the practice section of your study plan. Right now it gives me basically 3.5 days a week of LR and 1.5 of RC, but I’m pretty solid on LR and need more RC practice. Is there a way to customize your practice schedule to achieve a more even balance without ignoring my study plan and just doing drills outside of it? Would like to have them laid out for me automatically and be able to track how many I’ve done/have yet to do for the day/week. Thanks!

PrepTests ·

PT108.S4.P4.Q25

coleknight42

Sunday, Apr 19

I understand why answer choice A is correct under a certain interpretation of the question, but I'm not sure why answer choice D wouldn't be correct under any interpretation of the question.

When we discovered (ie, first found) fossil hominids (ie, when we discovered neanderthals, which were the first hominids we found), they "genuinely resembled modern humans" just like the pottery in answer D

Answer B implies making a guess (given that they are unrecovered) about other paintings. But it says in the passage that "the human fossil record has been found in largely reverse order" which implies that these earlier hominids have been found and that the conclusions that anthropologists draw are not educated guesses, but rather actively supported/contradicted by a scope of evidence that answer choice B does not allow for. This is not to mention that these later revelations of earlier hominids don't themselves constitute the "discovery of fossil hominids" because that discovery was that of the neanderthals, depending on how you read the word "discovery."

That some ancient thing was discovered that bore resemblance to some modern thing is explicit in the passage and both answer choices, but the logical continuation presented by the art historians in answer choice B feels different enough from that of the passage to make it less correct than the equally accurate but less comprehensive analogy presented in D