davidbcohen1988

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·

PT153.S2.Q26

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.

PrepTests ·

PT145.S2.Q10

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.

PrepTests ·

PT156.S4.Q5

davidbcohen1988

Tuesday, Sep 10 2024

100% agree with you I also was hesitant about E because of this. The rest of the ACs require more aggressive assumptions so E is the most reasonable but it's definitely not airtight.

PrepTests ·

PT156.S2.Q2

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.

PrepTests ·

PT144.S3.Q21

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?

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q8

davidbcohen1988

Friday, Aug 09 2024

"Some kinds of plants" is too vague to derive a meaningful conclusion about how the two types of plants are related. We don't know if this captures both types of plants, so for all we know, the kinds of plants referenced could just be non-nitrogen fixing ones, in which case we have no evidence for a similarity.

Even if A did specify both types (i.e. Some kinds of nitrogen and non-nitrogen fixing plants), I think it would still be wrong because it doesn't specify the similarity we need to address, which is that both types of plants grow less well when planted in the same spot consecutively. So what if the plants tend to grow better when mixed with other varieties? We still don't know why both nitrogen and non-nitrogen fixing plants grow less well over time.

C works better because it explains why the nitrogen fixing plants grow more poorly over time when placed in the same spot (they poison themselves). This is the evidence we need to understand the similarity (that both types of plants grow poorly over time).

PrepTests ·

PT109.S1.Q16

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.

PrepTests ·

PT112.S1.Q6

davidbcohen1988

Thursday, Aug 01 2024

The conclusion is that "it is likely that common wisdom has mistaken an effect for a cause." The effect they are referring to is having acne and the cause is eating chocolate. The evidence the author provides suggests that the assumed cause (eating chocolate) is actually an effect of having stress instead.

A isn't the main point because the author is not definitive it saying that chocolate can't ever cause acne, but rather is it more likely to be that stress leads to acne and eating chocolate.

If the author had said instead that people may be mistaken who insist that.., then it would fit, but saying the people "are mistaken" is too aggressive.

PrepTests ·

PT140.S2.Q3

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.

PrepTests ·

PT119.S1.P4.Q26

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?

PrepTests ·

PT105.S1.Q21

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?

General · Overlapping Sections between Old and New PT Formats

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

General

•

Monday, Jun 10 2024

davidbcohen1988

Overlapping Sections between Old and New PT Formats

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?)

PrepTests ·

PT132.S1.P3.Q16

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!

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q11

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.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S3.Q23

davidbcohen1988

Saturday, Mar 02 2024

I also was confused about how we can infer this. If we are told only Medina shares her opinion on an issue with Kay, couldn't she theoretically agree or disagree with Kay's view?

And for Legrand and Norton, if they don't share an opinion on the issue important to Kay, how can we know they disagree with her?

I feel like we need to make big assumptions about how the candidates' views align with Kay's only from evidence that their views exist or don't exist.

#feedback