User Avatar
craigret2
Joined
Feb 2026
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
162
CAS GPA
3.95
1L START YEAR
2027

Applications

Berkeley
In process
Boston University
In process
Columbia
In process
CUNY
In process
Georgetown
In process
Michigan
In process
Minnesota
In process
Northeastern
In process
NYU
In process
Oregon
In process
Toronto
In process
UC Law San Francisco
In process
U Washington
In process
Vanderbilt
In process

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT139.S2.P2.Q10
User Avatar
craigret2
17 hours ago

"Yet Gould has shown that foragers can dispatch bees to sites they had not actually visited, something that would not be possible if odor were in fact necessary to bees' communication."

This seems like a pretty unclear antecedent. I took this to mean that the bees being dispatched had not visited, not the foragers. This would mean that the first part of D is not supported, seeing as the foragers do visit the boats.

1
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q23
User Avatar
craigret2
Thursday, Jun 4

@mosheelish94 C is not correct because having "one of the highest offers" is not the same as having the absolute highest.

1
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q23
User Avatar
craigret2
Thursday, Jun 4

@Stas1973 Yes. However, the World Oil Company made "one of the highest" offers, which is not the same as being the absolute highest.

1
PrepTests ·
PT142.S4.Q23
User Avatar
craigret2
Thursday, Jun 4

@SirHarvey Causing a price reduction by restricting foreign buyers means that they necessarily did not get the highest value on the open market.

1
PrepTests ·
PT128.S2.Q12
User Avatar
craigret2
Wednesday, May 20

I guess the test writers have never been at a stoplight before. Drivers frequently inch closer to a stoplight, meaning that their speed is often not zero.

6
PrepTests ·
PT134.S3.Q18
User Avatar
craigret2
Thursday, Mar 26

It's not immediately clear to me that "In addition" implies that rule 2 should contain the business operation clause in the sufficient. It makes just as much sense to me that "In addition" just implies an entirely separate rule about RGBEL.

5
User Avatar
craigret2
Friday, Mar 13

@Edbnapa "Electric trucks" is a subset of all trucks. In other words, if it's an electric truck, it's also a truck. We can make a valid inference due to this fact.

Can we say the same of commercial pilots and people who fly? No. Military pilots, for example, can fly in fighter jets but not commercial aircraft.

4
User Avatar
craigret2
Friday, Mar 13

@Edbnapa You are right in saying that we can draw certain conclusions based on these claims. For example, because we know that all surgeons enjoy the sight of blood we can conclude that some surgeons do.

The point of the exercise, though, is that these two claims together do combine to produce a new conclusion. The case does not say anything conclusive about vampire surgeons.

1
User Avatar
craigret2
Friday, Mar 13

@ryokace One way to rephrase "some" claims in in terms of things existing. If I say some cats are orange, that is equivalent to saying there exists and orange cat. Since this question is talking about future scenarios (or a world in which something happens), they've phrased the answer in terms of those worlds existing.

1
User Avatar
craigret2
Friday, Mar 13

@EvaCarrascoLopez.PhD

It looks like they're using C to mean cancelled rather than class. If C did mean classes were in session, your translation would be right

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?