A:

P1: introducing context of a problem/point of tension between theory and reality with patents in IT.

P2: more details about the problem with patents – very broad and obvious patents with a lower bar of requirement(non-obviousness). Ideal vs. reality in recent decades.

P3: what large tech firms are doing to respond to this problem – by patent stockpiling. Author also thinks it’s a good deterrent and bad if you don’t do it.

P4: narrowing the focus to the patent problem in the software industry.

The author is reporting and criticizing a problem of patents being broader and more obvious than before with examples of tech firms.

B:

P1: Position of the author regarding software patents – the author is against it.

P2: but patents exist and they are a problem that the author is facing.

P3: author is adopting a solution against the problem in P2 – patent stockpiling.

The author is taking a position and adopting a solution to the problem of software patents.

A is discussing and criticizing the issue while B is taking a position and adopting a solution to that issue.

15.

A: not specific for A. not supported. Scope is not right for B.

B: reforming? In defense? You crazy.

C: yep. Pretty good. Supported and the scope is correct.

D: not supported at all. Crazy nonsense.

E: an apology to customers? You crazy.

16.

A: mentioned in both. Actually not mentioned in A.

B: mentioned in A but not in B. line 32-34.

C: mentioned in both.

D: not in A but in B.

E: not in A but in B. actually not mentioned in A.

17.

PP: same function/same purpose but different enough that it doesn’t infringe an existing patent.

A: nope. Descriptively inaccurate.

B: did you read the passage?

C: nope. Descriptively inaccurate. You are still using the patented idea tho. You are either infringing it or you need to license that shit regardless what way you are using it.

D: did you read the passage? Crazy nonsense.

E: exactly.

18.

PP: A is describing the issue while B is taking a position and adopting a solution for that issue.

A: nope. A is not objective. A is also critical of the issue.

B: perfect.

C: nope. Inconsistent with A.

D: what impasse? Also where is the way out in B?

E: what dispute?

19.

A: yep. Line 23-25 and the entire paragraph 3 in B.

B: what? No support.

C: again no support.

D: sure. Consistent but no support.

E: same as D.

20.

PP: patent stockpiling.

A: what? Crazy nonsense.

B: same as A.

C: same as A.

D: yep.

E: same as A.

21.

PP: patents don’t impede innovation in software development.

A: ok? Out of scope. Irrelevant.

B: this strengthens.

C: ok? Out of scope and irrelevant. Don’t care.

D: I think?

E: ok? I can’t do much with this without making assumptions not implied in the passage.

P1: JHB was impressed by tintype, an abandoned photographic process.

P2: DE likes albumen prints and tintypes. He trnna finesse ppl tho.

P3: there is a movement of photography moving back into the past even though it is on the verge of a filmless and digital revolution.

P1 and P2 are examples of the trend in P3.

P4: details and explanations of why the old techniques are popular again among artists. And why DE is into it.

P5: author’s view on the significance of the movement of these artists being into this stuff.

The author is reporting this interesting trend/movement and offering his explanation/analysis.

8.

PP: to give the context of this current trend of moving back in time with the old photo techniques.

A: pretty good even though I don’t see a sense of irony.

B: not supported. Where does it say that they are wary?

C: not supported. Where is the evidence for the author being skeptical?

D: not supported.

E: not supported.

9.

A: not supported.

B: supported by the last paragraph.

C: not supported. I don’t see a sense of irony in the passage.

D: not supported. Where is the support for enthusiastic endorsement or for the implicit critique?

E: I don’t think he is curious about how the techniques work.

10.

A: no idea. We only have information about what has been revived.

B: no information for this.

C: no information for this.

D: no information for this.

E: support from line 30-32.

11.

PP: to report/describe and explain a trend in photography.

A: nope. No argument there from the author.

B: supported but wrong scope. Not the primary purpose.

C: yes.

D: what? Where? Not even supported.

E: where is the contrast? Not supported.

12.

A: were these herbal remedies abandoned? Not an analogy. Where is the old technique?

B: where is the old technique? Not an analogy.

C: sure this is an old design, but it is being used for highly efficient turbocharger. You are using it for the wrong thing/reason.

D: yep, this is right. Using an old technique. It’s used to produce an irregular effect, just like the effects of the old photographic techniques. Close enough.

E: that’s not an old technique tho. Not an analogy.

13.

A: no support for this.

B: yep. Support from line 33-37.

C: same as A. no support for this.

D: what… this seems to be inconsistent with the passage because this is exactly what DE is doing. Hard to imagine he would believe this.

E: this seems to be inconsistent. He would likely to not believe this from the information in paragraph 4.

14.

A: pretty good.

B: this weakens.

C: out of scope or even weakens.

D: this weakens.

E: idk? Grouped extreme? Cuz this is talking about the latest techniques?

P1: introducing the main focus/main idea – BW’s proposed solution to the growing problem of bankruptcy among small farms. This is different/opposite from the trend of big industrialized agriculture production (big corp farms).

P2: elaboration of BW’s proposal – diversifying; CMC concept; crops on demand.

P3: further elaboration and support (stated by BW) for the proposal.

P4: more details about things small farms need to do according to BW’s proposal.

The author is reporting a proposed solution/argument. (OPA)

1.

A: exactly.

B: how do you know the dominate approach isn’t sensitive? No support.

C: idk about competition. Not supported. Also inconsistent; BW isn’t criticizing the trend.

D: where does it say this is a necessary condition for small farms to not risk failure? Not supported.

E: wow. Did you read the same passage as I did? 0 support for this.

2.

A: inconsistent with his plan. He said to grow only crops that clients ask for. Line 21-24.

B: yep. “pick-your-own”. Go harvest your own shit. Line 21-31.

C: inconsistent. This is the traditional view. Line 43-46.

D: no support for this.

E: not consistent. You need to comply with the client according to Whatley. Line 24-25.

3.

PP: because labour cost for harvesting is high af.

A: jesus. You pulling shit out of your ass. no support.

B: what? Year-round cash flow is related to the idea of diversification of plants.

C: yep. Line 26-31.

D: again. Just as B, this is talking about the wrong concept. It is talked about in the passage but the scope is wrong for this question.

E: wtf? Crazy nonsense.

4.

PP: reporting BW’s proposed solution.

A: yep.

B: nope. Inconsistent.

C: what? Where?

D: where are the disadvantages in the passage?

E: it’s a proposal. Where is the impact? Not supported.

5.

A: not supported.

B: not supported. Cbt.

C: sure? Not supported.

D: yep. support from the second paragraph.

E: inconsistent. Distribution costs are eliminated according to his plan. Line 32-33.

6.

PP: grow only crops that clients ask for and to comply with client requests regarding the use of chemicals.

A: wrong concept.

B: again. Wrong concept. This is not mentioned until the third paragraph.

C: what? Where is the support for this.

D: yep. Line 21-25.

E: nope. Same as A/B.

7. (wrong)

A: yep. Supported by line 20-21. (this is wrong)

B: likely inconsistent. Farm-to-market seems to imply they are bringing the produce to the market. Line 44-45. (this is the correct answer)

C: not necessarily supported without making unwarranted assumptions. (correct reasoning for elimination)

D: zero support. (correct reasoning for elimination)

E: what? No support. (correct reasoning for elimination)

EXPLANATION FOR THE WRONG SELECTION:

A: the information in line 20-21 only supports the idea of guaranteeing the right for CMC members to go and harvest what they want but it doesn’t support the idea of guaranteeing that they will get what they want. Big difference between you having the right to harvest and you for sure will get what you want. What if there was a nuclear war??? I made the assumption that they were the same idea.

B: I was giving an uncharitable reading to this A/C. I was thinking that the farmers were going to the market and not directly to the customers in the cities (like to their houses or sum shit like that). But, this A/C is merely saying these roads are what some farmers use to transport their produce to the customers in the cities.

@ said:

@ said:

@ Hello, Are you still taking on new tutoring students?

Hey! Unfortunately, I am holding off taking new students till after I am done with finals at law school.

When do you finish finals?

@ Hello, Are you still taking on new tutoring students?

JY you abs are the MVP!

Is @ still taking on any new students? I have read so many good things about her! @

P1: introduction of the main focus – CM and ST’s hypothesis regarding the link between the decline in the population of CM and the extinction of dodo.

P2: further elaboration of ST’s hypothesis – a causal link.

P3: the support ST gives to make his hypothesis appear rigorous (but not really).

P4: author presents evidences – by other experts – that directly contradict ST’s premises. The author then states the population decline is acute and could be due to other factors.

i. WS found hundreds of CM and many of them are far younger than 3 centuries. CM continued to reproduce even after the extinction of dodo. This counters the fake coincidence between the extinction of dodo and the last natural germination of CM seeds found by ST. There was no such link at all.

ii. AS’s research counters the claim that CM seeds require thinning by abrasion since unabraded seeds germinate and the number is probs sufficient to keep the species going.

The author is criticizing ST’s hypothesis.

22.

A: nope. Not supported. Wrong scope.

B: perfect.

C: what? Where is the support for it being unsound? Also probably solution? Inconsistent.

D: inconsistent.

E: consistent. Not supported and wrong scope.

23.

A: supported. Line 4-7.

B: not supported.

C: consistent but not supported. Trap A/C to bait you to choose this from P3.

D: not supported.

E: not supported and likely to be inconsistent. His investigation of CM was a side ting to his research on endangered birds.

24.

PP: intends to indicate that ST’s hypothesis may seem rigorous with the support of evidence, but it’s actually trash.

A: not supported/descriptive inaccurate. The author is not questioning the support. The author is actually saying his hypothesis appears to be good with the support but it is actually not good. (because we know from the last paragraph that it is based on false premises.) TRAP A/C – classic shell game wrong answer. A similar idea that appears to be the one the question is asking for but not really. Also is the reason “not carefully derived” that the findings merely appeared to support the hypothesis? Not supported.

B: consistent and supported but wrong scope. The author is not saying this to show that direct proof is impossible to get.

C: wtf? Not supported. How is this the thing the author is trying to indicate? Crazy nonsense.

D: supported/provable.

E: zero support for the second part of this statement.

25.

A: supported. Line 55-58.

B: inconsistent.

C: not supported.

D: not supported.

E: not supported. Cbt/cbf.

26.

PP: ST is literally cooking up a hypothesis about the cause of a phenomenon that didn’t even exist. There wasn’t really a loss of the ability to reproduce for CM. How tf can you attribute the extinction of the dodo to something that didn’t even exist?

A: correct? Inconsistent.

B: vindicated? Inconsistent.

C: what? Not supported. Crazy nonsense. Also why would this trash hypothesis by a valuable scientic achievement?

D: what? Why would it be laudable? No support for this.

E: yep. Exactly. You are trying to explain CM’s seeming loss of the ability to reproduce (a state of affairs that didn’t exist).

27.

MSS EXCEPT

A: consistent. And descriptively accurate.

B: sure? This is like A/C A.

C: what? No support for this.

D: abs. supported. Line 50-58.

E: supported. Line 55-58.

Passage 3

A:

P1: context info about insider trading law.

P2: an analogy/comparison between insider information and stock analysis, which is legal.

P3: support for why insider trading is good for the market.

P4: support for why insider trading is good for the market.

P5: more support. (more analogy/comparison with something ok again)

the author is arguing for insider trading. Pro-IT (IT not bad for the market).

B:

P1: principle of the stock market – transparency.

P2: insider trading is not fair. Some support/elaboration is provided.

P3: negative effects/consequences of insider trading.

The author is arguing against insider trading. Anti-IT (IT very bad for the market).

14.

A: nope. Wrong scope.

B: what? Did you read the passages?

C: ok why? No idea.

D: yep. A would say no and B would say yes.

E: nope. Not even mentioned at all.

15.

PP: + and -.

B.

16.

A: not mentioned in A and likely A doesn’t agree with it.

B: A would likely say no and B would say yes.

C: Yes. Line 11-15 in A and line 40-45 in B.

D: A would say no and B is silent and likely would say no.

E: not supported in A and likely no in B.

17.

PP: insider trading is legal or sum shit like that.

A: inconsistent. this is the oppo answer.

B: same as A.

C: unsupported and conforms to A’s position.

D: close but not enough. Not well supported.

E: yep. This is good. Well supported.

18.

PP: analogy/comparison with something that is ok – analyzing and gaining knowledge.

A: what general principles? To what examples?

B: exactly. Between insider trading and stock analysis and insider non-trading.

C: nope. That’s in B.

D: this is more supported by info in B. from insider trading relating to loss of investor confidence in the general market.

E: that’s in B.

19.

It’s considered ok by both A and B.

A: not supported.

B: not supported.

C: false. A thinks it’s ok.

D: exactly. A thinks it’s ok and IT is like that. B also thinks it’s ok but it’s exactly not IT and it is the only way to gain success in the markets.

E: this is crazy.

7.

A: wrong scope. Not the main point. It’s just context.

B: again. Wrong scope. It’s context.

C: scope is too narrow. What about physical costs? What about culture and housing cushion?

D: scope is too narrow and too broad. It’s too broad because the passage is talking specifically about the AA Great migration persisting, not generalizing to all migration movements. It’s too narrow because the passage also talks about other costs.

E: yes.

8.

PP: it was only then that the income gap became large enough.

A: exactly. Line 17-19.

B: what the fuck r u on about? Not supported.

C: not supported.

D: ha? Not supported.

E: jeeze. Could be true but not supported.

9.

PP: introducing the hypothesis and explain/support the hypothesis to the interesting phenomenon raised in P2.

A: what? Crazy nonsense. Not supported.

B: same as A.

C: what? Where the fuck is the model?

D: yep.

E: nope. P1 was just context. The passage is not trying to support the reason for the Great Migration. It’s been established and taken as given.

10.

A: well supported. Line 25-29. Expected financial gains alone isn’t enough because they are weighing that expected gain against the difficulties and costs of migration.

B: what? Why? Not supported.

C: why? Not supported. Cbt/cbf.

D: what? Again. Not supported.

E: again. Not supported. This is so broad. The passage is primarily concerned with the GM.

11.

PP: to raise a question about an interesting phenomenon and this question is then answered by the remaining passage by a hypothesis of the author.

A: wow. Crazy nonsense.

B: not supported. It’s not about the causes of the GM anymore. It’s about why the GM persisted and accelerated.

C: crazy nonsense.

D: exactly.

E: crazy shit. D.I..

12.

A: not supported.

B: inconsistent.

C: yes. Well supported. Line 8-15.

D: not supported.

E: not supported.

13.

A: what? It grew? This seems to weaken.

B: oh. This seems to support the ideas in the last paragraph. Brining information back; taking more ppl with them; providing new migrants with places to live and a community. evidence confirming the hypothesis

C: ok? very irrelevant.

D: what? Why? This seems to be going the opposite direction.

E: what? Why? This seems to be going the opposite direction.

PP: pre-phrase

DI: descriptively inaccurate/false

1.

PP: A thought experiment from P4.

A: EXACTLY. From P4.

B: where is the POE? Inconsistent.

C: inconsistent.

D: inconsistent.

E: inconsistent.

2.

PP: To illustrate why utilitarianism seems plausible on the surface.

A: what? Descriptive inaccurate.

B: D.I.

C: crazy nonsense.

D: exactly.

E: crazy nonsense.

3.

PP: to explain/describe JR’s theory and take a position on it.

A: is utilitarianism abandoned? Unsupported. Also the scope is not on the once dominant theory. It’s on JR’s theory.

B: exactly.

C: celebrated? Not supported. History about JR’s theory is only briefly mentioned in P1. The scope is also wrong.

D: there is no debate going on. Not supported.

E: not supported. Is it even controversial? And author is not arguing for JY’s theory.

4.

A: supported. Line 9-16.

B: not supported.

C: zero support.

D: not supported. We don’t know which of the primary goods is the most valuable to most ppl. We just know that ppl want certain primary goods: rights and liberties, powers and oppos, and income and wealth. We don’t know which ones are the most valuable

E: inconsistent. They are literally against this.

5.

PP: thinks of it as being clever and innovative but thinks that it is not perfect.

A: scholarly neutrality? Not supported.

B: disdain and it’s camouflaged? Where? Did we read the same passage?

C: skepticism about its cogency? What?

D: unsupported. There’s nothing about practicality in the passage.

E: line 19, 26, and 51-53.

6.

A: consistent.

B: consistent. the claim is about anyone in the original position. It’s a thought experiment anyways. So what if it is impossible in practice?

C: yes. So some ppl would not be agree that everyone should get at least minimum amounts then.

D: consistent.

E: consistent. Again. So?

@ You took the Jan FLEX? I remember seeing a lot of your posts about NOV FLEX. and weaving, chemistry/physics, CGS in court

bruh this is a cookie-cutter concept

conflation of sets (set in premise != set in conclusion)

wtf is this...

let R1, R2, R3 be the 3 rodent species and let R be the non-rodents.

Suppose there are 10 species then most are not rodents species because R accounts for 70%.

Suppose that there are 100m individual mammals.

let the 7 R total to 49m and the 3 R total to 51m then most of the individual mammals are rodents.

Suppose that R1 accounts for 98% of the 51m and each R accounts for 1/7 of the 49m then how is B supported?????????? PLZ HELP

straw-man

tu quoque

classic appeal to public opinion.

D is not that attractive. It is so irrelevant to the point of tension that is creating the apparent paradox.

beautiful question

classic begging the question

not ∀ = ∃ not

what did the CCP do to you, JY? Blink twice if they kidnapped your fam! LOL

@ well... time to look at the data then... https://report.lsac.org/VolumeSummaryOriginalFormat.aspx

go to the LSAT score section and see the rate of change for every score and score range yourself. Compare those rates with the rate of change for "Total".

2 classic concepts that LSAT tests over and over again. 1. beliefs != facts. 2. beliefs about X doesn't entail the beliefs about the implications of X. I have seen these two concepts over and over and over again on LR.

classic strawman