- Joined
- May 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
I think too many people in the comments about AC E are focusing on "will reduce the price" instead of "restrictions on who can purchase."
The stimulus states the entity must be sold for the highest price "on the open market." Answer Choice E states those able to purchase the entity will have significant restrictions.
So, the key with Answer Choice E isn't about the price, but rather the "open market" verbiage. If there are significant restrictions on who can purchase the entity, then it is not an "open market." And if it is not on the open market, then it violates one of the conditions that is required.
You can also create a rather simple and reasonable example of how restricting the market (aka not open market) can affect the price commanded by the entity's sale. Say in real life the government was going to sell the rights to a computer processor that would change the landscape of the market. To prevent a monopoly, they make it so NVIDIA, AMD, and Microsoft are unable to bid on owning this technology. Because of this, the bids will be from smaller corporations and therefore the price received for the entity will be less than "the highest price it can command in a free market." In this example, it is reasonable to conclude that the bid and sale will be less than it would have been if the large corporations were allowed to bid.
@Sabrinaaa the idea of it is you can go back to questions that get flagged and take an unlimited-time stab at. It gets flagged because you likely got it wrong or were flip-flopping answers. If you score better during blind review, it's a sign that you understand certain concepts but just need to get faster at them. While it also will show you question types that their is a concept-gap: you get wrong even with unlimited time.
I go back to flagged questions during blind review because it usually signals that there is a concept-gap somewhere. I likely did not understand what the question was trying to get at. So I go back and take a deep-dive into the stimulus/question.
Something I've also done that really helps is after blind review (or anytime I get a question wrong), I type out in the notes section why each of the wrong answers is wrong and why the correct answer is correct. Seems a bit silly, but really helps you understand the underlying foundations of how questions are written and patterns in correct/incorrect answers.
So their share of nationwide sales dropped form 50% to 25%, while their net profit from each sale remained the same. Author concludes the net income must half of what it used to be then.
This could be wrong. What if total nationwide sales of hairdryers is double what it used to be 5 years ago? In this case, the company would still have the same net income.
Answer A summarizes this flaw. We cannot say their is a decline in net income from hairdryers based solely on the decline in share of nationwide sales.
@fssilver ahhh okay that is exactly what I needed to know. Thank you very much.
i figured i was missing something 😅
#Feedback
7Sage, can you guys add a button at the end of a PrepTest that puts the blind review on hold? After testing for 3 straight hours, it would be nice to bookmark the blind review (be able to close everything) and come back a bit later. As opposed to having to blind review immediately afterwards.
Is there any way for me to still blind review a practice test after I submitted it? I went fish brain after sitting down for 3 hours to take a PT, and figured I could just blind review later because I wanted to take a little break...but now I just have "-" for all my BR scores.
Would like to go back and blind review so I can see if my score gaps were time-based or concept-based.
Anyone know if there's a way to do so? Or would I have to "retake" the same PT (copy original answers) then do the BR?
So a predator digging holes for their prey to lay their eggs in helps explain why the dragonfly population is more likely to be healthy?
That's some BS.
It also says the dragonfly "population" is more likely to remain healthy...wouldn't B make sense then? If the crayfish present no threat to the adults, then that would explain why dragonfly populations are better off in areas with these crayfish. For all we know, dragonflies live for 100 years and have one gestation period in their lives.
I sometimes fail to see how the LSAT writers find the assumptions required for the correct answer choice to be more reasonable than the ones that are apparently wrong.
I'm sorry, but the assumption here that watching your identical twin is the same as being in "group 1" is terrible.
Group 1 is when you watch yourself do something. Answer D is about watching someone else. Your twin is not you. It's a different person entirely.
I get the idea that group 1 might have over-reported how much they exercised after watching themselves down the road. Fine. That would weaken things. But you can't use a twin watching the other twin as an example here.
Alright, hate this answer but this is a trap LSAT seems to use surrounding the words "significantly" or, in this case, "considerably."
My intuition thought, "since the item is 'free', the makers have no way of making $$ on the first month offer." Oh silly me, we aren't in reality though where intuition can always be applied, we are in LSAT world.
Since Activate can charge a handling fee that is considerably more than what it usually costs them, we are forced to assume this "considerable" - synonymous with "significant" in this case - increase must cover the $$ of giving it out for free. If it did not cover this, then it would not be "considerable."
What kind of idiot consumer would pay for a "free" trial that actually costs more than the normal product for (1) month?...that's where I find this question to suck lmao.
@SusanLeifker I also got tripped up by this. In hindsight, you could argue it was only eradicated in the polluted industrial cities, but not elsewhere. Leaving a way for the diseases to come back I guess? That' the only way I can make sense of it.
Group 4 now includes "never," which was omitted in the original introduction of the group 4 indicators...add to group 4 intro so the follow-up lesson makes more sense.
Why not include the word "never" in the group 4 indicator list if it is used in 2/5 times in the follow-up examples? I find it to be rather frustrating - after being told to "look for these indicator words" - that almost half don't even use said indicator words lol.
The consumer has two triggers for a refund:
Item was used only as intended.
Stops working the next day.
If those two conditions are met, then you are owed a refund.
He uses this lawgic in an analogous situation, swapping out "department store" for "Bingham's Jewelry Store" but keeps the watch part the same.
He triggers #2 (stops working the next day), but he does not trigger #1. We need #1 to come to the conclusion that a refund is owed.