Discussions

User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT106.S2.Q11
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Tuesday, Apr 30 2024

For anyone confused about AC E, it's wrong because it's not possible given the premises.

We know John must work 5 days a week, 4 at the insurance company and 1 as a blacksmith on Friday. If he works at the insurance company and as a blacksmith in the same day (i.e. Friday), then he would only work on 3 other days at the insurance company for 4 work days total. Since that is 1 less day than we are told he actually works, this situation can't happen.

D is right because if John HAD worked either on Saturday or Sunday [at the insurance company], he couldn't have worked at the insurance company Mon-Thursday.

5
PrepTests ·
PT105.S1.Q21
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Sunday, Jun 30 2024

I agree with A but I'm still confused why E can't also be right here. If we run the negation test and say that appeals to both economic and psychological factors are not needed to understand any event, then wouldn't that destroy the premise - conclusion relationship?

Just because some events may involve both factors, if we don't need to appeal to both factors to explain any event, how can we say the doctrines are still mistaken? Couldn't they each be sufficient in certain cases to explain an event then, because there wouldn't be an instance where a doctrine has to acknowledge both economic and psychological factors?

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q10
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Monday, Sep 23 2024

I think another point to consider with B is that it discusses pollutants from phosphate free detergents. I feel like B would be important to have an answer to if we were talking about detergents with phosphate, because if phosphate detergents did not release any pollutants, the evidence wouldn't establish that people made the switch.

0
PrepTests ·
PT140.S2.Q3
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Tuesday, Jul 23 2024

From my understanding this is the argument structure:

Humorous→Attracts Attention

Humorous→Message Conveyed

Effective Ad→Message Conveyed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Conclusion: Effective Ad --> Humorous

I'm thinking A is right because we can only connect effectiveness and humor by saying some things that are not humorous are not effective.

(Referring back to one of the key valid argument forms, this is what we could say from the premises)

A(humorous) –> C (message)

B (effective) –> C (message)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/A (not humorous) some /B (not effective)

Because the conclusion says something effective must be humorous, it is invalid.

Something effective could lead to a message being conveyed and also not be humorous, so A captures this issue.

1
PrepTests ·
PT144.S3.Q21
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Wednesday, Aug 21 2024

I understand why D works for this question but I'm still confused about C.

I chose C because if the conclusion is that "to get clothes really clean in a front loading washing machine you NEED to use formulated detergent for them," then wouldn't evidence of something else allowing the clothes to get really clean in a washing machine prove that you don't NEED the formulated detergent?

1
General · Overlapping Sections between Old and New PT Formats
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Monday, Jun 10 2024

Just found this resource actually for anyone encountering a similar problem. Don't think you can change which extra section you get but you can see which test the section is coming from:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sczox8uJgD6yFSIkgr9q8ode0hhNtoMItFeBb3WkbTE/edit#gid=0

0

Hello!

I recently took PT138 from the August 2024 and later tab and noticed an LR section completely overlapped with one I had taken with a logic game (PT60). Assuming the new tests are randomly distributing an experimental RC or LR section to keep the test at 4 sections, is there is any way we can block or substitute the extra section if we already took it?

(i.e. PT138 pulls three sections from the Dec 2012 exam and 1 from June 2010 (which in this case I already took); can we substitute that June one with a section from a different exam or just block it entirely?)

0
PrepTests ·
PT156.S2.Q2
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Monday, Sep 09 2024

I would add to JY's reasoning for A that it's wrong because the argument says the dinosaurs had nearly the same body temperature in their limbs as in their bodies. Saying the body temp of large mammals is slightly higher than the temp in their limbs is thus entirely consistent with the argument.

I think B is tricky because it seems to me to be attacking the premise (suggesting that the inferences about the isotope estimates from the fossils can't be drawn), but answers like this are ok if the others are all wrong.

2
PrepTests ·
PT109.S1.Q16
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Thursday, Aug 08 2024

Does anyone have fast strategies to work through questions like this where there's multiple conditions/rules you have to reference in the stimulus? I feel like I'm too slow.

5
PrepTests ·
PT132.S1.P3.Q16
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Thursday, Jun 06 2024

Never thought about approaching 2-part passages this way where you read the first part, filter out some ACs, then go back to the second part to figure out the true answer for each question. Really helpful!

1
PrepTests ·
PT153.S2.Q26
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Wednesday, Oct 02 2024

It's so crazy how many arguments on the LSAT contain the same detailed to generalization error that I overlook. This question is really easy when you see that the second sentence talks about all kinds of businesses when we only have a premise about businesses that meet ethical standards.

B qualifies a condition for businesses with high ethical standards that doesn't connect with the conclusion.

4
PrepTests ·
PT119.S1.P4.Q26
User Avatar
davidbcohen1988
Monday, Jul 01 2024

For 26, I picked B because I thought if there is not coordination in how pharmacists distribute medications (where some could dispense medications without a prescription and only with a customer's request), that there could be a risk for harming others if they are selling medications that the person might be requesting without real need (i.e. opioids or meds that could lead to overdose).

Is this line of thinking wrong because the assumption that customers could be requesting things they don't need is too aggressive?

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?