Subscription pricing
Is anyone else studying for the October LSAT?
PT Questions
ddstanislaus452
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Mar 19 2014
Weakening question: Since the pesticides that are banned from the US that's exported to other countries are the pesticides that are used on agricultural produce that's imported back into the US, this practice increases the health risk for US consumers. Ans C weakens the argument because "this practice" refers to the practice practiced exclusively in the US and by showing that the said practice is not the only practice that has the power to increase the health risk for US consumers, it weakens the P->C. Other countries manufacture and export banned pesticides for use in the US so that practice (done in other countries) can also increase the health risk for US consumers.
ddstanislaus452
Friday, Mar 14 2014
Strengthening question: The premise states that many expenses do not occur monthly and taking into account only monthly expenses can cause a business to overexpand, therefore, using a cashflow statement is critical for all businesses. Why is a cash flow statement critical for ALL businesses? Because a cashflow statement can curtail overexpansion by checking expenses that do not occur monthly. Choose the answer that makes the conclusion more true.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
suff/nec confusion. Pay attention to suff/nec indicators which will help lead to the correct answer choice.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
SA: if [...] assumed, conclusion of argument properly drawn . The conclusion says that money does not exist and this is supported by the fact that all that is needed is a universal loss of belief of money for money to disappear. I understand both valid argument set ups. For me I think the explanation goes better with this valid argument set up --->>> ME->(ULB and MD/) because it clarifies the correct answer choice better. ME->(ULB and MD/) "If Money Exists, you can have a Universal Loss of Belief in it and it NOT be the case that Money Disappears." In the first valid argument set up, although I understand it, it's difficult for me to translate back into English and match it with answer choice A because I have ME->ULBMD/ I am saying "If Money Exist, then it's not the case that a Universal Loss of Belief would make Money Disappear." I think I just caught why the second valid argument translation form seems to work better in my mind. I made the error of not distributing the word "NOT" properly and ended up negating Universal Loss of Belief which becomes not a universal loss of belief which is then belief. This confused me because the latter part of answer choice A says " even if everyone were to STOP believing." which made the entire translation incorrect. [ME-> you Believe, or ME-> STOP BELIEVING]. For time's sake, JS's suggestion below is best to follow under time constraints, figuring out the wrong answers.
Looking back at this explanation, it is entirely too long, but I think it is helping me lol! Apologies in advance for those who will read this after me and may/may not understand what I am trying to explain. :) (Just look at JY's video again and again!)
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Mar 06 2014
Principle: Terry feels like giving his repeated effort to reach the insurance company, he has no success and that makes him feel like the company is deliberately trying to avoid paying. The q stem asks which answer choice violates Terry's reasoning, meaning which one is opposite to the principle Terry believes to be true. Ans A is correct because it says that the company may just be incompetent and not deliberately trying to avoid paying up.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
Read the question properly not confusing suff/nec conditions to create the correct valid argument form to arrive at the correct answer choice.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Mar 06 2014
Resolve paradox: Recent powerful earthquakes show little damage to high rise building but according to computer models high rise buildings are at high risk for collapsing. So why when real powerful earthquakes did hit the high rise buildings they did not respond the same way as the computer models' predicted? Because the computer models do not always make correct predictions.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
Okay, I think I understand this one. NA: an assumption that the argument necessarily relies on. The premise states that students will be able to assess their professors at any time and concludes that the new evaluations will give an accurate description of the distribution of student opinions about the professor. In order for there to be an accurate reflection of students' opinions of a teacher's performance, the argument necessarily relies on the fact that dissatisfied students are not more likely to submit an evaluation. If dissatisfied students were more likely to submit an evaluation, there would be mostly negative remarks about a teacher which will wreck the argument because one would be unable to conclusively have an accurately distributed reflection of the student's opinions about a teacher's performance.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Mar 06 2014
Weakening argument: The conclusion states that it is clear the efforts to save endangered species are wasted. The answer choice that best weakens the argument is to show that there have been instances where efforts made to save endangered species have been successful.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Mar 06 2014
Flaw in argument: Having a lot of police patrol with still a lot of crime does not mean that a great police force does not decrease crime. Rather a large police force could be a response to a lot of crime.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
This one was tough. I feel like I understand it because I'm listening to JY's explanation. But I can't seem to write my own explanation. Help please.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
Between '90 and '93 there was a 30% increase of teachers at the school. However, the average # of students per teacher remained the same before the increase. If there are more teachers but on average the same # of students to a teacher, then it must be true that there was an increase in the # of students during that time in order to satisfy the ratio of students to teacher.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
PSA: justify reasoning. Don't get confused by the suff/nec statements. The premise states that Germany is the only country that can resuscitate neighboring countries. The argument then concludes that Germany should help the neighboring countries. If you are the only country to help, then that country should help. B helps to justify the reasoning in the stimulus.
ddstanislaus452
Thursday, Feb 06 2014
In the stimulus experts in computers are asked to make a decision on behalf of the company they work for. Their decisions are selfish because they are going after what they want instead of what may be best for the company. Ans choice C is correct because it parallels the argument in the stimulus in that a librarian who is an expert on books in the library chooses books that they prefer over what may be beneficial for the members of the community.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
The argument's conclusion is that Fred's conclusion is not warranted because although his premise that most famous actors and directors work together, Fred knew beforehand that Kathleen directs documentaries and since famous actors are rarely in documentaries, Fred was incorrect in not using that information in his conclusion.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
The conclusion says that the least efficiently run gov't are the ones that most commonly receive an increase in funds and the premise to support that is when legislators discover that some public service is not being adequately provided, the most common response is to boost funding for that service. Ans choice A is correct because it connects the reason as to why a gov't is considered inefficient to how that inefficiency translates into failing to provide adequate public service.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
For Since Because introduces premises, however presents turn from context to psychologist's argument. Identifying the psychologist's main conclusion helps to find the correct answer for the question.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
The conclusion that high salt diets are linked to high blood pressure in rats was arrived at only after high salt diets were fed to rats leading up to the rats having high blood pressure. In the stimulus there was no baseline of what the blood pressure of the rats may have been before the study was conducted to properly infer the conclusion drawn.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
Flaw/descriptive reasoning: Ben supports the new regulations and restricting growth. Willet has heard the same argument 10 yrs ago and again 5 yrs ago where not restricting growth was always justified. So instead of fighting against the new regulations, Willet decides to just support the same position that's always been justified to make it easier for himself. Willet didn't consider that maybe this time around the previous reasoning is now not justified, hence the flaw in his argument.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
If assumed:sufficient assumption. If you do not see an answer choice that you figured out using a valid argument form, don't forget that another option may be to find the contrapositive of the valid argument form to select the right answer.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
Weaken: weaken the support between the P and C. Ans C presents an alternate explanation that although specialty sports food contain the same ingredients as regular food, and are more expensive, athletes purchase them not because they are expensive but because they are easier to carry.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
Most vulnerable to criticism:Descriptive reasoning/flaw. Identify the P's and C to determine where the argument doesn't follow. Although alcoholic beverages were at one time thought to have originated from one place and then evidence proved otherwise, the conclusion doesn't follow because it doesn't take into consideration that the present evidence may change.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
Weakening question: Weakening the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, proving that it must not be the case in the argument instead of attacking the P or C. If the manufacturing process produces the same nicks on drums then it doesn't follow that the drums on each page can be reliably traced to a suspicious laser printer. It will be difficult to determine and differentiate where the nicks came from.
ddstanislaus452
Wednesday, Feb 05 2014
Do not confuse sufficiency/necessity and premises/conclusion. Pay attention to the structure of the sentences too. When reading answer choices do not play into LSATs biases. Create a valid argument form to understand the question better. If you have a principle of morality that will not cause disastrous consequences, then you should fulfill your principle of morality. If you do not fulfill your principle of morality, then your principle of morality will cause disastrous consequences.
Stimulus says that one should write the instructions to assembling the product in such a way that it is easier to assemble the product with the instructions. Ans choice C says that if I am able to assemble the product correctly without consulting the instructions then the principle advanced by the consumer advocated cannot always be followed because it doesn't matter how the instructions are written since I can still assemble the product without consulting the instructions.