Subscription pricing
RC is bringing my scores down for the most part, I feel fine with LR but I cant seem to improve on RC. Anyone have tips/resources that have been helpful to them? I'm scheduled for the October test!
PT Questions
fsantos60321314
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
fsantos60321314
Monday, Dec 30 2024
C addresses that by saying " not necessarily soil" in which crops have been rotated which is exactly why its right. You are right in saying "could be true" for C but you are overlooking the fact that C is not definitive in that area.
The thing is the entire this is the condition, it is not necessarily a causal chain:
You are seeing it as this:
Failure to rotate --> depletion --> fertilize
/fertilize --> /depletion --> /failure to rotate
The correct way to look at it is like this (in my opinion):
(Failure to rotate --> depletion) --> fertilize
/fertilize --> /(Failure to rotate --> depletion)
Because when you negate that, you are negating the conditions entirety - It is not a causal chain from one to the other.
Then you see, you don't really get confirmation of whether or not crops were rotated or not.. you only know that that relationship did not occur. ; leaving it open to the possibility that "not necessarily" suggests from AC C.
fsantos60321314
Thursday, Dec 26 2024
OMFG im translating the correct answer of Q24 for those who needed it like me:
"would likely cause less harm than prevent" is basically saying "would likely prevent more harm than it would cause" which is a good thing, because we want something that is consistent with the implementation of these rules in the way the author arguments (to avoid/lessen harm)
Another way of understanding it: it is saying the total amount of harm caused would be less than the total amount of harm prevented - again stating that it will prevent more harm than it causes (a good thing consistent with the authors claim)
fsantos60321314
Thursday, Dec 26 2024
23 i got right on timed but second guessed and chose C the second time, but now i see that it cannot be generally inferred because it doesnt even show up in the second example of steroids.. how can it be generally necessary if it doesnt show up in an example given..
While consent is mentioned on both topics, driving and steroids.
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 25 2024
James is arguing against the claim that many people think the voting public is unable to evaluate complex campaign issues. He proceeds to cite the fact that TV commercials from Reade discussing complex issues have led to his popularity, assuming that 1) the public is understanding his discussion of the complex issues present in the commericals and 2) that there is no other reason's for his popularity.
Maria concedes James' conclusion regarding Reade's popularity, but pushes back against the second assumption mentioned above by stating that Reade is just seen as more confident.
Lets go back, what was James' argument? That people can in fact evaluate complex campaign issues, according to him as evident through Reade's commercials discussing them making him popular. Maria says no, and addresses one assumption.
AC D addresses the other assumption, and states that no.. the people watching these commercials dont even understand Reade's position on these issues. So then, how could James support his argument if both of his assumptions are shown to be false?
Maria's argument is that James is wrong in concluding that people can evaluate campaign issues, and AC D supports her counter in that.
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 25 2024
This is basically a overgeneralization flaw on behalf of Olaf. Olaf misinterpreted "normal" to apply the same way to everywhere, when Charlene specifically said this applies to a "region's" temperature.
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 25 2024
C got me the first time by the exact same way Kevin mentioned but i thankfully noted my mistake on BR and chose B!!
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 25 2024
I do not see how "most commonly receive funding" and "most common response is to boost the funding for that public service" are synonymous.. one is talking about the receiver receiving funding while the other is stating the frequency of an action being taken..
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 25 2024
E is a typical "attack the conclusion" answer choice, we dont care about possibly decreasing the amount of salting roads because we are simply trying to weaken the argument that regards explicitly the current rate of saltying.. E goes on a tangent and discusses something else.
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 24 2024
ugh i chose D on BR because i thought it was so good cause it destroyed the conclusion, but thats not our job on weakening!!!
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 24 2024
i knew this was an ad hominem but to me it was so well covered since the author never directly said it.. so i started looking for other flaws (that were nonexistent)
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 24 2024
bro once i saw my mistake during BR i was like darn you LSAT!!! so sneaky with the sampling flaw.
fsantos60321314
Wednesday, Dec 18 2024
okay after processing my thoughts, here is why C is wrong explaining by the two parts of the answer choice:
1. for starters, it mentions that World Oil Company has placed one of the highest bids. Two things wrong, we dont know if its the highest, and it was never confirmed that PetroNat HAD to accept this offer. We cannot assume its the highest just like we cannot assume its not the highest. And we cannot assume that PetroNat will accept this offer. Thus, for the first rule we are left unsure to whether or not it will be violated.
2. the wording of this off the bat is tricky because its meant to frame it as IF PetroNat already accepted the bid, but like mentioned that was never confirmed!! Anyways, if we grant that, there are still flaws we can identify. Just because we cannot determine whether the citizens will hold majority share does not mean they will not hold majority share. This is an absense of evidence to rejecting an argument flaw. One of the oldest tricks in the book yall!!
We are better than this!!! Ahhhhhhhhh!!
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 17 2024
i trusted my gut and switched my answer to D at the last second.. i just KNEW that D was the answer. the trap answers were trying to bait you on the suff/necc stuff when the flaw was actually synonymous to an example of denying a conclusion because of the lack of evidence. the failure to predict now does not mean it will fail forever, AKA the lack of (evidence) being able to predict right now is not sufficient for us to conclude that it will NEVER occur.
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 17 2024
this was so unrepresentative because on top of the fact that it sampled just old people, it sampled old people with insomnia.. like thats so specific how can it be representative enough to make a general claim about the pineal gland in regards to age?
I think JY makes the mistake of explaining that the "age" of the argument is represented by the "old people" of the sample because its not?? a more proper sample would be possibly gettting samples of this group at one age, and then another. or a random sample of different age groups demonstrating the argument of the pineal gland deteriorating. while this sample group, all we know is that theyre old..
fsantos60321314
Tuesday, Dec 17 2024
i hate this question type so much bruh literally my worst opp
fsantos60321314
Monday, Dec 16 2024
This question would have been easier had I identified the MAIN point of the argument, which is that insufficient time is being spent. The answer would have to address something regarding that, AC A and D were both attractive if (like me) you thought the main point was wanting to reduce the cost of medical procedures..
Once you see that the main argument is regarding time, understanding why AC E is the right answer makes so much more sense.
fsantos60321314
Monday, Dec 16 2024
POE is your best friend because all the wrong answers didnt seem applicable to make the conclusion hold like C..
Also as someone below mentioned, in SA questions if the authors conclusion adds something new, then the correct answer MUST include that new topic/concept. How else will you make the argument follow logically if you dont even consider a missing topic to the argument? you cant !!!!
fsantos60321314
Monday, Dec 16 2024
it took a while to understand but basically this is why C is correct:
One of the authors premise is that fish recover quickly. during mill shutdowns, when dioxin is released.
C is saying okay yea that might be true, but maybe its because the dioxin does not stay in the area where the fish are - but instead move downstream. OF COURSE the fish will recover quickly if the deoxin is no longer present where the fish are. The fact that they even need to recover in the case that the dioxin moves downstream validates the fact that dioxin does does cause these abnormalities.
fsantos60321314
Monday, Dec 16 2024
i could not understand this question at ALL until BR
fsantos60321314
Sunday, Jan 05
is there a difference between your timed and blind review score? I am on the same boat.. with hitting high 150s on my timed and high 160s on my BR. I just recently broke a 170 on my BR for my most recent test.. i think it is definitely taking the time to understand even the questions you got right fully. And for me personally, its just remembering to slow down because i find that when i go too fast i mess up and overlook the arguments/assumptions/correct answers.
fsantos60321314
Sunday, Jan 05
I wasn't taking the first sentence as context and thus I overlooked C.. fml
fsantos60321314
Sunday, Jan 05
i got tricked by "thus" indeed, this question reminded me to identify where in the stimulus does the author state a sort of opinion.. basically their hypothesis. Rereading the last sentence again, that clearly sounds like a premise and is def a sub conclusion meant to strengthen the main conclusion (their hypothesis).
fsantos60321314
Thursday, Jan 02
would this be a form of circular reasoning? using as evidence the same as your conclusion..the computers in this case
fsantos60321314
Thursday, Jan 02
I was fixated on the idea that the speaker being European and saying.. no these plays dont mean shit to us because only americans see them.. then choosing E lol rip
my flaw was not distinguishing between the "5 countries who are interested in peacekeeping" and "some countries in favor of peacekeeping". The latter is a general claim, where we know that the 5 countries are apart of but we have no idea if they are the only ones interested in peace.
Had the last sentence of the stimulus said "some of those 5 countries interested in peacemaking are firmly against refugee spending", then AC C would be more applicable. But again, we dont know if the 5 countries in the UN are the only countries in that generalization of "some for peace but against refugee" part of the stimulus. We only know they are apart of the peace.