Discussions

g1oriaaa734

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT119.S3.Q24

g1oriaaa734

Thursday, Nov 26 2015

So I think that tmichaels02-1-1-1 had a very good way of describing this question down here in the comments however I was still a little confused. What put it all together to make me understand the answer was to keep in mind that there is a difference between saying something in the hypothetical world and saying something that is the case in the real world. The premise "This is evident because all that would be needed for X is Y" is not stating that this is the case, it is merely stating that this would be the case to prove that something does not actually exist. then it goes on to conclude therefore money does not exist. We need to make sure that the hypothetical conditional statement is applied to the real world and that is exactly what the right answer choice does. I hope this makes sense!

in other words

The notion of "All that would be needed" does not equate to "all that really is needed in this case."

PrepTests ·

PT129.S2.Q22

g1oriaaa734

Tuesday, Jan 26 2016

Another reason I think B is wrong is because it actually weakens the argument. The last sentence says "contrary to previous belief the Clovis point was not invented in North America" Personally I think that if the Bridge disappeared before any of the found spears were made, then there is a huge possibility that the clovis spear could actually have been invented in North America and Siberia SEPARATELY with no indication of which came first. However by saying that the one in Siberia is older, the argument is still pretty weak but at least we have some glimpse of strengthening evidence that B lacked.

PrepTests ·

PT121.S4.Q21

g1oriaaa734

Tuesday, Nov 24 2015

.This question had me thinking for a long time. I hope someone can tell me what they think of my reasoning and/or I hope this clarifies things for someone. I think what happened here is that the confusion of the notion of ignoring unpleasant realities and telling small lies is that both are independently sufficient to bring about insincerity. Although it is an “and” that conjoins the two, if you listen to the meaning of the phrase “ignore unpleasant realities” and “tell small lies” both phrases can independently bring about an insincerity and I think that is why an “or” is also okay to use (the inclusive or that denotes “and/or”). Im not certain here but it is all that makes sense to me after trying to re diagram.

Another confusing thing is that the first sentence says “…by requiring…” we are told in our lessons that this word introduces a necessary condition but what makes this question hard is that we cannot always just go by rote memory. If you actually read it and think about it aside from what you have been taught to just memorize you can kind of get the feeling that the concept might be necessary of something that occurred in “the traditional norms of the society,” but when juxtaposed to the notion of preventing sincerity, I think that what is stated after “…by requiring…” becomes the sufficient condition.

PrepTests ·

PT121.S4.Q23

g1oriaaa734

Tuesday, Nov 24 2015

This question was very hard for me. I hope someone can make use of this or correct me if I am wrong.

We read the stimulus and we realize that it is a Weaken except question. This means that there will be four answer choices that weaken the stimulus and there will be one correct answer choice that is either neutral or strengthens the argument in the stimulus. The consultants referred to in the stimulus deduce from their reports a correlation (Correlation is an empirically observed covariance –a change that tends to happen together in the world-and when you see correlation happening it gives rise to four possibilities: A causes B; B causes A; C causes both A and B; and No relationship) that the most efficient managers correlates with excellent time management. From this the speaker goes on to make a conclusion that to improve productivity they want to make available to the managers a seminar to train them in techniques of time management.

To try to weaken the argument we must try to attack the connection/relationship between the premise and conclusion and seeing that there are a lot of assumptions being made in the argument, I get a sense that we can start there to attack this argument. One obvious assumption that the speaker makes is that time management causes efficiency. As stated before this is just one of the many conclusions to be made between the two ideas when making a correlation so this is not supported. Another assumption being made is that efficiency implies productivity. If you are efficient then you must already be productive so to be more productive (as the stimulus goes) we must have better time management. It is kind of difficult to prephrase an exact answer choice in this case but going into the answer choices I kept the assumptions in mind.

A) Thanks to this answer, I had to write this whole thing out. I was so confused as to how this does weaken. My mentality was that oh well if they use the same criteria then it would definitely help to attend the seminar because if you get better at this productivity then your efficiency ratings will go up too therefore strengthening the stimulus. However this answer choice wrecks the argument because it actually just wrecks the foundation of the argument by actually attacking one of the premises that the argument relies on. We think about this argument in terms of taking the report from the consultants to be right and the speaker being dumb and creating the flaw when in actuality answer choice A proves the consultant’s reports wrong independently. This answer choice basically says that the consultants measured the two to be the same thing (efficiency = time management) …but if they are the same thing then how can they be correlated therefore if they are the same thing then how would a class help you out to be more productive or how could you even come to such a conclusion based on no correlation? Something that intrigues me is that most LSAT preps teach that weaken and strengthen questions have answer choices that attack the relationship of the premise and conclusion. Although this is true, it is only true like 90% of the time. For the hardest LSAT questions, this is actually not always the case. This question is an example along with two other questions I recently faced where the right answer just wrecks the argument from the foundation that is stated in the premise and has nothing to do directly with the conclusion.

B) If successful time management is more dependent on motivation than on good technique then that weakens the argument (even if it is just by a little) because who is to say that time management will be that helpful knowing this new piece of information.

C) If MOST managers at other companies have tried this proposal already and they remained unproductive then 51% plus is enough to make a weak conclusion that productivity will probably not increase from these seminars

D) We do not know about most managers who are already efficient. So what? We don’t know what these people “need’ like whether or not “they need to improve their productivity.” The argument does not address them. This answer choice is neutral and does not weaken the argument. It is the correct answer.

E) This weakens it very slightly just by saying that over 51% of the most efficient have not attended a time management seminar so that weakens the connection that it could really actually benefit someone. 51% is enough to make a deduction.

General · Reading on tls that some high scorers...

g1oriaaa734

Wednesday, Sep 16 2015

i like you ms. Hopkins. haha I can sense your passion pouring out from my computer screen. i was only planning on doing it for this week. it really helped me in RC and I have been able to point out a trend in weaknesses in my LR but i was definitely going to taper off. not do it straight through until the test but as of now I feel strong...but hey what do i know -__-

General · Reading on tls that some high scorers...

g1oriaaa734

Wednesday, Sep 16 2015

oh ok

General · Reading on tls that some high scorers...

g1oriaaa734

Tuesday, Sep 15 2015

hey! i guess it depends where you are in your studies. I started taking two PTs a day but I am in the high 160s and trying to break 170. I feel like I have enough mind endurance now and the reviews are not that long because at this stage I am just trying to get as much practice as I can. When I was just breaking into the 150s no way would I have done something like this because I was still learning so much so doing two PTs a day would be suicide because the review is more important and you will also burn through all the tests and be getting not good scores. All in all i think it just depends where you are in your studies and what score you are aiming for (i.e. if you are aiming for 165 and you are getting 162s and your test is in three weeks, then maybe it is time to do two practice tests).

P.S. you will not burn out if you have built up endurance. I compare it to a runner. A normal person trying to run 5 miles after not running for ages will get burnt out if they just started running hard. However if you build up to it, a person running 70 miles a week will not get burnt out by running merely five miles. The notion of "burnt out" is very subjective so do not listen to everything you read about it. The key is to know yourself and where you are.

Also some days wont be as good as others. REMEMBER THIS before you start crying and/or feeling let down. the lsat is a mental game. See it all the way through and trust yourself, your journey, and your studies. Good luck!

LSAT · Reading Comp wont budge

g1oriaaa734

Thursday, Oct 08 2015

@ can you please let me know when you guys decide on discussing RC?!