Speed kills, I did this question in about 15 seconds and E jumped out at me because I wasn't paying attention. What a shame.
Could not bring myself to pick anything other than A because I could not pick an AC that only picks up on one of the two flaws here. A didn't seem good so I chose it reluctantly.
So is JY just going to ignore the fact that AC A only talks about what happened since the 70s but the stimulus says that the increase started in the 60s? I mean come on, there are dozens of LSAT questions that pick up on this difference and test you on it.
Don't worry, you just need more time. My first 5 PTs were 157, 159, 162, 162, and 162. I thought I plateaued, but I got a 168 on the July test. Do timed/untimed practice, watch explanations, read different material, take note of why/how you got questions/passages wrong, and try to absorb the material as much as possible. The more you do, the more you'll get the hang of the LSAT. I really can't stress untimed practice enough. Get your fundamentals down, then incorporate timing, and work your way toward a strategy. Dig through these forums, too. There is a plethora of knowledge and study tips in these here forums.
25 I really wanted to pick B, but in the moment I was having a hard time buying the "truth" aspect of the AC. But then I realized that you can basically equivocate "truth" and "knowledge" as it is referenced in the second paragraph.
Excellent, thanks everyone!
So if you print PTs from 7Sage, in the LG section, you have a giant margin at the bottom of at least one, usually both, pages to do all your scratch work. In the prep test books supplied by LSAC, there's hardly any room. Which one reflects how much space you get on the actual test?
Took me a solid 20 minutes to understand what was going on here after mistakenly choosing B. The mall is part of the local economy. If a bunch of tourists poured in from out of town and spent money at the mall, every single dollar that every tourist spent would be a dollar contributed to the local economy. If tourists spent $100 million, then the local economy would grow correspondingly. That didn't happen. One way to reconcile this is to imagine that the mall, rather, displaced money from other businesses in the local economy.
For these types of NA questions, I let my gut guide me, and somehow I got this one right.
#help JY seemed to have brushed over the "of computer specialists" part of AC A on 24. Any other analysis why A is incorrect? I picked it over E because it seemed the author thought the problems with the computer tools were irreconcilable.
I read this one as a correlation-causation argument, which helped guide me to B. If you take away the cause, then you get no effect. I forget which PT, but there was a question that went something like this: a factory dumped chemicals into a river, so the fish grew two heads. Therefore, the chemicals caused the malformed fish. One way to justify that argument is to take away what you think the cause was, the chemicals, to see if the effect goes away. In this case, it’s gravity being a property of space and the photons and neutrinos arrive at the same time. Take away gravity’s space property and you have unsynchronized particles
In the final two paragraphs, the author implies that critics' evaluation of Victorian philanthropy relies on a fallacy, which is an immediate indicator that he/she thinks that they are wrong. The author describes the critics' view as patronizing, and strongly emphasizes that the philanthropists, in direct contrast to the critics' opinions, in fact devoted themselves to philanthropy, and did not bastardize it by taking advantage of it for personal gain. It is a straightforward "strong disagreement." So that's my argument for A. As to why C isn't the right answer choice, maybe you're confusing the author's use of the term "un-Victorian" paired with a trite adage as amusement, but there are no amusement tone indicators. If anything, the author is just trying to be as clear as possible, and being frank to do that. Yes, the author is cynical, but he/she is anything but amused-- the author is concerned about the implications of these criticisms, and is writing this piece to set the record straight.
So we have to assume two things: that refuges are part of animals’ natural habitats, and that they came about due to the international effort. 1000/1000 times I would pick A. Despite the rate of extinction, the international efforts could be saving their habitat. Even if there are no animals in it, can’t their habitat be saved regardless? The efforts were designed to “protect the natural habitats of endangered species,” and if scientists are now better at accomplishing that aim, how does this not weaken the argument that the efforts were wasted? #help
AC E on #11 is just a definition of neorealism
Missed question 19 due to my misunderstanding of the word "anomalous" (thought it meant the one and only exception). Now E, which I eliminated, seems perfect! Thanks LSAT.
#12 tripped me up but for a different reason than what JY explained. I misread the question (something I need to work on). I saw "the court.. most likely.. answer.. which of the following questions" and assumed it meant "the court's ruling in Charrier v Bell is most likely to answer which one of the following questions?" and answer choice E provides some support to answer such a cookie cutter question, but even then it's not a great AC. Rushing + not reading carefully = loss of points.
This is one of those questions that I will just always get wrong and have accepted that. I eliminated B so quickly, and I still feel like it doesn't touch our argument. So what if it varies? What does that prove? What if it varies significantly but proportionally to the amount of people living in that region? The AC isn't strong enough to me to infer that variance somehow equals inaccessibility. And even if it is varied, the claim that the stimulus is attacking says that it will "plague humankind," which implies every single human on the entire earth. Somehow variance supports this? I just don't get it.
tfw you thought "dearth" meant "breadth" and sank four minutes in the first paragraph
I was down to A and C on this one. Hesitant of A because I'm always hesitant of weakening/strengthening ACs that say "some." My initial thoughts are, "So what if some do? That means some don't. Moving on." But after mapping out the argument, it makes so much sense that A is the right AC.
The argument structure:
Contorted bodies → Death by angiosperm
In english, if you die with a contorted body, you always die by intoxication via angiosperm.
A:
Contorted body → Death by angiosperm
if a mammal dies contorted, then by the stimulus's argument, it must have died by ingestion of an angiosperm. However, they can't die by angiosperm. The argument is invalid.
Another reason D is wrong is because the odds of payout are already taken into account when discussing the average payoff. Average (expected) payoff = probability x number of payoffs. If probability of winning the lotto is 1/100 and you play it 100 times, your average (expected) payoff is $1. Who cares what the odds are? Need to distinguish between analogies.
Maybe I got this question right because when it started talking about bikes in the 1800s I immediately thought of those bikes with the enormous front wheel and the dude is sitting up like 6 feet off the ground. People falling off and getting hurt could turn away a bunch of people from riding bikes, which is basically what E says. Doesn't work every time, but sometimes good ol' intuition does the trick when conditionality seems misleading.
The power of skipping is strong in this one. Got flustered on this one, finished the section with 5 minutes left, came back and finally realized the flaw of the argument. major key.
Hello 7Sagers,
I’m going over my last PT— 65– and in section 1 Q 16, there’s a sufficient assumption question with a bi-conditional premise. I understand it now, but it was a major time sink on the PT because I froze up. Can anyone think of other questions like this one? It seems cookie-cutter, so I’d like to practice a little more, and it’s too specific to filter in the Question Bank.
Thanks!
Answer choice A's attacking the analogy aside, just the fact that a weakening AC has the word "some" in it is suspicious. When I read a strengthening/weakening AC that has "some" or "many" in it, in my head I think "so what? Some do, some don't. Many do, many don't. Who cares?" Has anyone else come up with a strategy for eliminating ACs with certain words in them for certain types of questions like this?
Does anyone have data on whether these fee waivers are any indication on chances of acceptance? I assume these schools just want to boost their application numbers to seem more competitive and there’s no affect.