Had an answer choice been "If we do not increase enrollment, then we will not maintain quality" would that be correct?
My thinking is since there is /A -> /B -> C -> /D and the conclusion is /A -> /D we can prove that it is a vaild conclusion by going from /B -> /D instead of C -> /D like we did.
MSS questions do not test your ability to bridge a gap between a conclusion and a premise. Instead, they ask you to take everything in the prompt as 'true' and ask you to make an inference on it.
These answers are hard to predict, and they can often include a lot of variety. My strategy for going through these questions is to eliminate answers that I KNOW that I cannot prove (or what cannot be supported at all) and that normally narrows it down to 1 or 2 for me.
An important thing to remember for these questions is that even though there are called 'most strongly supported' only one answer choice will actually be supported. The other four will not be.
Another thing that is helpful to remember is that the answers to these questions do NOT have to validate the argument to 100% - that would make them MBT / MBF questions. (In fact, this is the only difference between the two). The exemplify this:
"The Kuna, a people native to several Panamanian islands, generally have a low incidence of high blood pressure. But Kuna who have moved to the Panamanian mainland do not have a low incidence of high blood pressure. Kuna who live on the islands, unlike those who live on the mainland, typically drink several cups of cocoa a day. This cocoa is minimally processed and thus high in flavonoids.
Of the following, which one is most strongly supported by the info above?
The correct answer for this problem ends up being E)
"Drinking several cups of flavonoid-rich cocoa per day tends to prevent high blood pressure."
Although that the information above does support this, it does not make the argument 100% valid. There could be a million other things that the Kuna off the mainland do instead that lowers their incidence of high blood pressure. However, since we are just asked to find what is most strongly supported, we can be confident about our answer.
I won't write out choices A-D, but they end up not being supported by the prompt at all.
Hope this helps!
I would think you have a great shot at some lower T-14 schools. A good resource to use for this is http://mylsn.info/r/pre-law/admissions/search/. You just got to plug in your data points and you can see where people similar to you have applied and been accepted. Just take this infomation with a slight grain of salt however; as it is all self-reported.
Hello everyone! Quick question:
I've been thinking long and hard about my personal statement and I've decided that I can write the most enthusiastic paper about a poker experience that I have had. I believe that this is a great story and would really catch the attention of perspective admissions staff. However, I am concerned that the subject matter may be viewed negatively, as poker / gambling can come with a stigma.
What do you all think about this?
When you hit 180. Seriously. It might be hard to get you score up there, but with enough teaching, practice, and understanding, anyone can get there score to that mark. The real question is how long will that take someone and how much time are they willing to invest in this.
I understand why D is right, it is obviously a causal weakener. However, I did not pick it because I felt that it forced you to make an unreasonable assumption. In my mind, I was thinking that "So what if the cars are safer now, that doesn't necessarily means that enough people have bought them and using them to make a difference". Can someone help me with this? Is my assumption wrong, or are we allowed to assume stuff like that for these questions. #help
I feel that these types of questions are "feeler" questions for the Law Schools to gauge the seriousness of your application. This could determine things like scholarship money. If I were you, I would put down schools with similarities. For instance, if you were applying at say both North Dakota State and Harvard, don't tell NDSU that you are applying at Harvard. They could not take your application seriously and not offer you as good of a deal as they would have otherwise.
Thanks for the insight everyone!
I would be happy to swap! Send yours my way, I’ll read over it and send you mine back
If you’re still interested, I’d be happy to look at it as well
Super pumped that I hit my goal score (168) today! But now im lost on what to do for the next three weeks before the november test. Obviously, I'll try to continue an upward trend - I'm already planning on taking additional PTs, BRing them and then reviewing, but should my strategy change at all? Should I continnue to focus on my weak spots? Or take more mental breaks and focus primiarly on testing? If someone found themselves in a similar situation and could weigh in, that would be really helpful.
My breakdown for this test (PT81)
LG -0
LR -5
RC -6
I felt that this question was really tough, so I wanted to share my thought process in case anyone else is having similar struggles:
Question Type: Least Strengthens ; find conclusion and identify which one least strengthens the argument.
It could be that 4 barely weaken the argument, and the fifth choice does immensely, watch out for this.
Conclusion: Shakespeare knew Euripides' play through a Latin translation.
Why? B/c Shake play is modeled after Euripides' play. AND Shakespeare knew little or no Greek (not enough to model a play). So the original play was an unlikely source.
It could be that Shake knew Arabic, and the play was translated that way (# of other languages, key is translation could be different)
Answer Choices:
A) Kinda. I mean it just says that Latin was used in other plays, not related to Euripides'. This seems like it could be correct, but we will hold onto it.
B) This seems to be saying that say that the wasn't modeled after the other. I don't know what this has to do with our argument though. Wrong...
C) Wrong. This strengthens.
D) Wrong. This strenghtnes.
E) Wrong. This strengthens.
I would go with A
The correct answer is A
Hey! This is a double sequencing game type - which is what I think are the hardest ones often because the rules are difficult to diagram.
That rule is also difficult because it uses negative language. The best way to understand this for future games is to just pick up on negative terms and their implications. So when it says " S cannot be placed after V" , we might be inclined to say: S --V but we have to realize that this implies the possibilty of S = V. This is very similar to other games that have a rule of "at least" (Ex. There must be at least two spaces between Bob and Jeff).
I've found that the questions in logic games (and logical reasoning for that matter) tend to be hard curve breakers, so if you can tune your mind into this subtile implications, you'll be golden!
As far as other help for this goes, try taking a peak at PT 61 S3 G4 and PT 47 S4 G4
Hope this helps!
Very tough Question because I think there are two trap answer choices and the correct one is hidden pretty well.
Argument Breakdown:
A year ago, the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than in the prior year. Therefore, speed reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
Conclusion: Speed reduction can reduce traffic fatalities
Premise: Reduced highway speed limit
Premise: There have been fewer highway fatalities since the reduction.
On the surface, this seems like a simple causation flaw: A, B; therefore A -> B. However, this question stem is what makes this question really tricky
"The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that:"
This means that the correct answer choice is going to state what was an erroneous thing for the argument to assume... okay. That's kinda new and I don't really know how it will pertain to my original causation flaw prediction.
A) The argument doesn't assume this. Eliminate
B) This is a tricky answer because I think it plays at that original causation flaw. It leaves open the possibility that it wasn't the speed reduction, it was disobedience that caused the high fatalities. However, digging deeper, this is also not something that the argument assumes. The majority is a strong term (first flag), and it is completely possible that the majority obeyed the traffic laws before-hand (second flag). Eliminate.
C) Also tricky! This argument does actually assume this! However, it is something that is necessary to assume and doesn't make the argument wrong. This stuck out to me as a "Descriptively accurate -but not why the argument is wrong" answer choice that we see in other questions. Eliminate.
D) The argument doesn't say or assume this. Eliminate.
E) This leaves E. So by eliminating the other Q's, we know this is right. But why is it right? If the argument assumes this, and it is wrong then it opens up a different possibility - that the number of fatalities was a freak thing last year and it wouldn't have happened again this year regardless of the speed reduction. Aha! This also points to the causation error that I found out earlier in the sense that something else caused the fatalities, not the speed of drivers.
RC is about the last section I really need to make some improvement on. I'm happy with my accuracy on all of the passages that I do (they are between -0 and -2) but I also only make it through 3 passages within the time restraints. Does anyone have any experience with doing RC faster? Any help would be appreciated.
Something that was great to hear about was how to write a good GPA addendum and when you should do it. The discussion actually showed me that I would be a good candidate to write one for pertaining to my undergrad. The key take away is to be specific and use numbers!
I agree with the two comments above. I just want to add that your LOR is written by people who are capable of writing a good letter that can address your abilities. If you are not sure that someone can do this, then it is best to look elsewhere.
I sat for PT 85, and I felt that the LR sections were more difficult than normal. I wouldn't sweat it too much, just make sure you understand the mistakes you made. Build up your confidence the next two days, and good luck on Saturday!
Unless you're looking at HYS, it shouldn't matter. Even then, they'll most likely be glad to just accept the higher score. I could only see it making a difference if you were in a dead even race for a final spot in the class and your only difference was two tests compared to their one. I'd say try your best on this week (you never know what can happen on test day!) and prepare to sit again in December. If your score is significantly higher the next go around, consider writing an addendum.
Don't sweat it, you'll be fine. Just triple check next time!
How far away are you? If you are close, then it may be worth taking the test and getting a feel for the real deal. If you are nowhere close, then I would reccommend withdrawing. There is no need to take the test until you are ready.
My back of the napkins calculations show that 61% of the people who went into law firms ended up going to big law; and 58% of all grads went to big law or are doing clerkships. Those sound like good numbers to me!
In this question, we are looking for a principle that would justify the conclusion. I like to solve these questions by re-instering an answer choice into the premise and seeing how it works.
The premise(s):
Nevertheless, a ban on whaling of endangered species cannot be inforced without the banning of all whale species
Hunting endangered whale species should be banned
Conclusion: All whale hunting should be banned.
A) If this was correct, it would wreck our argument. All whale hunting cannot be banned if fishers have a right to hunt endangered species. Eliminate.
B ) This sounds good. Let's reinsert this to check though
Nevertheless, a ban on whaling of endangered species cannot be inforced w/out the banning of all whale species (If a certain activity ought to be prohibitied, so should any other activity that interferes with the enforcement of that prohibition.) Hence, since hunting endangered whale species should be banned, all whale hunting should be banned.
Bingo. If this principal is taken as an additional premise, it helps bridge the other premises and conclusion very well. This is our right answer.
C) I think this question is trying to pull at your predetermined ethical boundaries. Most people in the Western world view whale hunting as unethical. However, ethics never appears in the premises nor has a real relation to the conclusion. Eliminate.
D) This one is also a little tricky - the wording is slightly confusing. It is talking about allowed actions though (permissible), we want a principle that justifies our arugment to NOT allow whaling. Eliminate.
E) This question also plays with your pre-known knowledge, as whaling has economic and commercial value. However, commercial value is not mentioned in the premises and it doesn't relate to our conclusion at all. Also, why would whaling non-endangered species be a non-commercial means? That's a little insulting to the blue whales of the ocean - just because they aren't white and have stories written about them. Anyway, you need to be careful with the wording on these types of questions. Make sure the principal has an actual relation to the conclusion. Eliminate.
While I agree with uhinberg, I don't think it'll come into too much consideration. It seems that you already have a bunch of sunk costs with the September LSAT, I suggest that you take it and see how the test environment is. There is no way to replicate that experience 100%, so maybe consider this as a trial run. I think there are more rewards to taking it at your stage than there are risks.