Discussions

dchu9644

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Study Groups · August LSAT Study Group 170+

dchu9644

Monday, Jun 07 2021

Interested! Messaged you!

PrepTests ·

PT140.S2.Q3

dchu9644

Wednesday, Jul 22 2020

(C) is tricky because it would have been correct if the conclusion says "All humorous ads are effective." But the actual conclusion only says that "humor is necessary for effectiveness." The author allows the possibility of ineffective humorous ads. But had the author treated "Conveying Message" as the sufficient condition for Effectiveness, it would be impossible to have ineffective humorous ads.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S4.Q20

dchu9644

Saturday, Jun 13 2020

C) is attempting b/c it appears to rule out other neurotransmitters being alternate causes. But whether or not there are other neurotransmitters leaked out of bad cells doesn't influence anything in the stimulus. The stimulus says nothing about neurotransmitter other than indicating G's functionality within a nerve cell, while the focus of the argument is on what happens OUTSIDE of a nerve cell. We cannot help this answer choice by assuming that other neurotransmitters might have negative impact on nerve cells if leaked.

Suppose G is the only neurotransmitter leaked from bad cells, so what? We don't have any hint that the culprit belongs to the category of neurotransmitter. What if the culprit isn't any type of neurotransmitter?

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q15

dchu9644

Tuesday, Jun 09 2020

For me the main difficulty with eliminating (A) is understanding what it is really saying. So (A) is basically saying that the author makes an assumption: "If the ad campaign was not adopted, then sales would have been equal to or higher than the sales under the adoption of the ad campaign."

This is obviously not the author's assumption because we don't know anything about the situation where "the ad campaign was not adopted."

PrepTests ·

PT120.S4.Q23

dchu9644

Sunday, Jun 07 2020

The stimulus only tells us that "if 990 workers, then normal productivity." It didn't tell us there is a strictly positive correlation or proportionality between number of workers and productivity.

I initially eliminated (B) because I think it assumes that "if there are less than 990 workers working, then the productivity will not be normal (i.e., will drop below normal)". That is, the assumption required by (B) is that "not 990 -----> not normal productivity." Isn't this a bad negation of the conditional in the stimulus?

Should we take this assumption of answer choice B for granted, and can we safely assume the positive correlation or proportionality between number of workers and productivity?

#help

Study Groups · Study Partner for RC (active reading!)

dchu9644

Monday, Nov 11 2019

Thank you so much for all 7sagers who commented on this post! I've already found a study partner.

But please definitely feel free to DM someone who commented on this post, and pair up depending on each other's availability!

Personally I found that a study group consisting of 2~3 people could be very effective for RC. It ensures that everyone can take charge of at least one paragraph when reviewing one passage per study session. Also, I found that writing paragraph breakdowns and sending to each other before each study session begins also help improve the quality of the session.

Study Groups

•

Wednesday, Oct 30 2019

dchu9644

Study Partner for RC (active reading!)

Hello! I am looking for a reliable study partner who wants to improve RC via forming the habit of active reading.

JY emphasizes the importance of active reading in CC, and there are excellent resources about the specifics of active reading (https://classic.7sage.com/webinar/active-reading/ and https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6354).

I am planning to take the March/April exam. My current RC score is around -8 to -5, and my target is -3/-2. Ideally I hope we can "meet" once or twice a week on Skype. I have a very flexible schedule -- either mornings or evenings works fine for me. Please let me know if you are interested!