Hi Mary! Thank you for the advice! It works on Chrome! Yay!
@.Y.Ping Hi, thank you for the quick response! Unfortunately the issue persists on my end still after refreshing the page, clearing the cache, and closing and re-opening the browser...
Hi, just wondering if this is happening to anyone else or if this is a me problem? The buttons seem to be missing on the practice windows - the drills and preptests. Both on the actual practices and on the review page. Like they are still there, you can click on something, but the icons are missing so you have to guess where to press.
I just need to whine a little because my mom was literally prescribed resistance training by her family doctor and physical therapist for her osteoporosis. I guess I just equate resistance training with weight bearing exercises. So like "certain medical therapies work without special diet" is like, so true, exactly. Her doctors told her she didn't need to change her diet if she didn't want to. Just take some VD and Calcium supplements and do her prescribed resistance training. B clearly supports the view. I guess in LSAT sometimes you need to forget any outside information that gives you assumptions. ugh.
This is a very nice part vs whole trap and I absolutely fell for it. ooops.
You are not alone in this! Just for reference, before I started the CC, my PT was at 153. After the CC and a few drills, PT at 157. For three months I was oscillating between 160 and 164 with no visible improvement no matter how I drill. Like in drills I'm doing pretty well. But when it comes to PT I consistently only had time to finish at most 22 questions in each section (both RC and LR).
I got very good at letting go of a question tho. If I couldn't do it after two passes at the answers, that's a pass. Anything inference or MBT/MBF (my weakest and always a time sink for me) that looks complicated after Q10, pass. Anything that's not a parallel reasoning but the answers can't even fit into my screen? pass. If I have time for it at the end I will come back to it. This did not improve my LR score by much but it improved my mental health by a tremendous amount, and I don't get a blinding headache by section 4 which is always a plus.
Recently I broke my plateau in LR. For the past 3 PTs, I am now able to consistently have 1-2 extra minutes left after finishing all the questions in the section. And I got my first -0! The new LR drills tagging system really helped me! So maybe try drilling those instead of by question types. Also I recommend not looking at the time while doing PT.
Full timed PT also takes stamina which takes practice and a healthy mental space. I was burning out a little last month, and it really showed in my PT performance. Took an entire week off. Got better.
Would really appreciate any advice on RC tho like god help me it seems to be getting worse (sobbing)
My issue with A was the wording "it connects the analogy...". To me it is the analogy, and the part connecting the analogy to the argument is the part after it: "and government fund NEO research..." BCD are obviously wrong. I was down to A and E and was like the first part of the argument is providing support in how well this analogy will work. So I chose E.
ok yeah doing this one was like. ok A -m-> B -> C therefore A C. eliminated all the answers through skinny dipping. huh weird. going back to read more closely, ok fine A B -> C therefore A C. make sense. Skinny dip, failed again. ok skip question. in blind review, somehow I forgot why I eliminated A in the first place and decided it was close enough. Looking at the correct answer, still took me actually writing down the Lawgic on a physical piece of paper to see why B is correct.
Gotta remember some relationship is bidirectional.
#help
So in B "whether the loss in aesthetic quality that results from modernizing the language of premodern plays lessens the plays' usefulness for teaching history", L mentioned aesthetic quality but C didn't therefore it's wrong.
But doesn't D have the same issue? "whether increasing the accessibility of premodern plays through modernizing their language is valuable for teaching history" - C didn't really talk about accessibility in his argument either.
My issue with B was mainly the "lessens the play's usefulness" part. L straight up said it's useful. C straight up said it's not. They were not discussing a relative usefulness.
I was hesitating about D because the core of that sentence is "whether increasing accessibility is valuable for teaching history" which is not the point at issue here. But I guess similar issue is present in B as well. And between B and D, two imperfect answers, B is worse...
C still doesn't make total sense. It would make more sense if in the stimulus it says "a person can be allergic to to some - but not all cats." then it can be inferred that not all cats have the same protein.
The passage only says things about some people allergic to some protein and each allergy sufferers are allergic to different proteins. it can be the case that among the idk 100 proteins a cat produce, some people are only allergic to this subset of 5 proteins and some other people are allergic to this other subset of 5 proteins.
But yeah all answers are bad. ABDE are just worse I guess.
dipped too shallow ooops 😞 caught the mistake in blind review.
I found this question much easier to deal with the idea of "absolute quantity =/= proportion" (which is very often how statistics lie to you).
"A greater percentage of group A does things than of group B" - maybe group A has like 10 people and 8 of them do this, group B has 100 people and 50 of them do this.
"Much more group A people got into blah than group B people" - group A has 1000 people and 100 of them got in, group B has 100 people and 50 of them got in.
Like, even without cherry picking in sampling, concluding anything without considering size of source population is kinda eh. Zeroed in on the correct answer immediately. Like I didn't even consider subset superset generalization. Read the stimulus and immediately thought "nope" lol (I would be in trouble if the question goes at it at a different angle)
My biggest issue with this question is how the answers are phrased. The stimulus makes it very clear there's sufficiency necessity confusion between approx same age and comfortable. With that in mind I went in and actively hunt for this. Yet I failed to do so in the first pass. Ok POE time. All the ACs focusing on the concept of approaching strangers got eliminated. Which left me with B and E. B looks like an analogy or a generalization so that's wrong. Through POE I reached E which still sound too convoluted for my brain to parse quickly. In blind review I had to reread E like three times to figure out what I'm reading.
I don't understand why "takes the refutation of an argument to be sufficient to show that the argument's conclusion is false" is problematic? Can someone please explain how "P1 and P2 does not necessarily leads to C because the person fails to consider F" is different from "it is not true that P1 and P2 leads to C, given F as a counterexample or something"? Or did I misunderstood JY's explanation? #help
🙋♀️ stopped reading B after seeing "It is cited as evidence that" lol and then in blind review I was like how did I miss this.
I might be missing something obvious here but what are "MP" questions?
So I definitely completely missed the analogy. But still, B. Currently I'm doing this by negating the AC and see how it impacts the argument. I felt like negating B actually helps the argument? If it's easier to domesticate animals shouldn't we have domesticated more or something?
In the stimulus:
Premise: Political virtue from struggle to become free by their own effort is necessary for maintaining freedom. Maintaining freedom -> Pol Virtue from struggle
Conclusion: External force giving political SD -> not truly free.
A is saying the exact opposite of the conclusion
B - stimulus says nothing about "the first political virtue"
C is restating the premise basically
D - I eliminated this because the stimulus didn't explicitly say "Political SD", just "the political virtues necessary"
E - Can someone explain to me why it is not E? My guts tell me there's some issue with the prescriptive statement but I can't quite rationalize it through words.
I was stuck between C and E and eliminated C because past experience tells me restating the stimulus usually is the trap answer and I couldn't quite reason out E.
#help
Initially chose D. Upon careful reading in blind review realized nope that's actually not right. And I was like huh ok now I have eliminated all five answers what's going on. After reading through the answers again like three more times, noticed A. Ok yeah this is so obvious I did not even notice it as my assumption. It's like assuming there's gravity - a useless but universally accepted fact lol.
I am really struggling with these cost benefit analysis questions. I feel like the biggest issue I have is with defining the scope. With the previous question, although the government and industry is mentioned, the scope is basically only concerning the user of the lightbulbs. Yet here it specifically asked about the manager's position, but we have to take into consideration of the whole company's standing, which wasn't really mentioned anywhere. I'm so lost.
I was looking at "a fact that the government and the home lighting industry are eager to change" and thought to myself the profit would be an important piece of information for cost benefit analysis from the industry POV. But the "the opinion of current users of low-wattage bulbs as to their effectiveness" is just an opinion and not a fact therefore shouldn't be put on the scale of measuring the cost and benefit. Like, I was thinking, we should consider this from the POVs of home owners, the government, and the industry - the cost of manufacturing and distribution against the benefit of increased profit, the cost of idk incentivizing changes or waste management or whatever against the lower usage of electricity, the cost of switching bulbs against the change in monthly electricity bills...
lol I eliminated B immediately because it is restating what has already been said in the stimulus. "For one thing, this deterioration can be slowed by some anti-inflammatory drugs, such as acetylsalicylic acid." "Acetylsalicylic acid reduces the production of immune cells in the brain." like duh, ASA, the anti-inflammatory drug, reduces immune cell activity. like, when I was drawing the causal chain, it was one single chain, where ASA suppresses microglia (immune cell) which attacks BA protein which destroys brain cells leading to deteriorating cognition. I was like, how can I make this single chain stronger? ah, what if I can replicate this in another setting? and then I chose E.
Can I reasonably make it a rule of thumb that in these probabilistic relations questions (A -m-> B), the answers that are saying A is not true aren't gonna be the correct choice, since if A is false, then we can't infer anything from the existing rules. So the correct choice will always start by affirming or assuming A is true?
The example is really obvious, but when I think about it, something like "All violinist at New York Philharmonic know how to play the violin. Some people who know how to play the violin like to tune their violins daily. Therefore some violinists at NYP like to tune their violins daily." will definitely trip me up if I'm not careful about it.
alright Q20 is one of those questions that is a complete lost cause. didn't get it timed. didn't get it in br. listening to the explanation, and pondered for like 5 minutes and be like sure fine alright iguess my brain hurts lmao.