User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT125.S4.Q24
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Monday, Apr 12 2021

I see. Thank you for the help!

0
PrepTests ·
PT125.S4.Q24
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Wednesday, Mar 10 2021

Can someone explain why B doesn't work with the following reasoning?

What if there were 1000 buildings in total, then subtracting only 60 buildings would mean there is still a number of large buildings...?

#help (Added by Admin)

0
LSAT · Translations and Powerscore
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Friday, Feb 19 2021

Thank you both very much - that helps to make sense!

0
LSAT · Group 3 and 4 plus Group 1
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Friday, Feb 19 2021

Thank you! Patience is a virtue I suppose, so I was just jumping the gun and jumping to conclusions like usual. Much appreciated.

0
User Avatar
•

Friday, Feb 05 2021

garrettgregor281

Translations and Powerscore

Curious what y'all think of the following - below was my translation of a Powerscore logical reasoning quiz, and then what they had listed...

The strike will end only if management concedes a pay raise.

Only if, necessary

The strike will end: /S

Management concedes a pay raise: McPR

/S-->McPR

/McPR-->S

If management does not concede a payraise, then the strike will continue.

Powerscore says:

SE = strike will end; MCPR management concedes a pay raise

SE-->MCPR

(if the strike ends, then management conceded a pay raise)

/MCPR-->/SE

(If management does not conced a pay raise, then the strike will end.

I guess what I'm wondering is how many of you would consider SE to be strike will end vs hstrike will end being equated to /S

0
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Jan 28 2021

garrettgregor281

Group 3 and 4 plus Group 1

Hey everyone...

I'm only about a quarter of the way through the curriculum, so perhaps this is discussed later in the courses, but after being confused with how group 3 and 4 interact, I sought out explanations as to how to combine rules and ultimately settled on just following the rules as JY presented them...

However, that led me to thinking of examples where this might not hold true, and I came up with the following example which combines group 1 and group 3, based on the example from the cheatsheet:

All horses are strong, unless they have been drugged.

Obviously, grammatically this isn't a complicated sentence, so I suspect it is something we would see fairly frequently on the LSAT. That being said, I'm curious how we tranlslate a more complicated sentence like above? What I came up with was:

All: group 1, sufficient

All horses: H

are strong: S

H-->S

/S-->H

unless: group 3, negate sufficient

unless they have been drugged: D

At this point, it seems like if we treat the first statement, "All horses are strong" as X, and "unless then have been drugged" as Y, then we should have /Y-->X

Therefore, is the following correct?

/D-->H-->S

/S-->/H-->D

If it is not a horse that is strong, then it has been drugged.

Please #help?

0
PrepTests ·
PT103.S3.Q20
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Saturday, Jan 09 2021

I think I understand this better now having seen the diagramming, but with this and the last couple of videos, JY seems to draw on logical diagramming - did I miss something in the curriculum? Should we know how to be doing that yet? #help

0
PrepTests ·
PT104.S1.Q20
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Friday, Jan 08 2021

Thank you - what you said about D made me realize that I was taken an outside assumption in about limericks.

0
PrepTests ·
PT21.S3.Q16
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Friday, Jan 08 2021

I should have gone back and added this, as it helped me to clarify... A molecule is defined as the smallest particle that can make up a substance, therefore, one could not have half a molecule. I'm still not sure if that is scientifically true or not, but I think it helps to make sense of it....

1
PrepTests ·
PT21.S3.Q16
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Wednesday, Dec 30 2020

In choosing C, couldn't it be plausible that half a molecule could activate a receptop, thus a discovery could be made that something could be perceived as sweeter?

#help (Added by Admin)

1
PrepTests ·
PT111.S4.Q1
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Wednesday, Dec 30 2020

I did the same thing - after pouring over all of the answer I was left with A/B and then forgot about the EXCEPT

0
PrepTests ·
PT23.S3.Q24
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Tuesday, Dec 01 2020

Wow - I guess I should have looked at the explanation first...

Can someone help me understand how “the end’s value is thus the only reason for the action” is not the same as "it is clear that nothing will justify a means except an end's value"?

#help (Added by Admin)

1
PrepTests ·
PT23.S3.Q24
User Avatar
garrettgregor281
Tuesday, Dec 01 2020

I also had trouble with this question - I think that it was a matter of the language being a little hard to decipher. When you break it down though, you should be able to see that the main conclusion is "the end's value is thus the only reason for the action" - upon first look, I got confused and tried to entangle the last sentence to fit with that... When we put our blinders on for just the main point though, we can look at the answer choices:

A: this just isn't in the text and seems to be playing on a well known cliche of the ends justify the means

B: to me, i think this one comes off a little too strong by saying always justify

C: correct; almost an exact rephrase of the main conclusion noted above

D: this also isn't in the text and wants you to gets confused with the verbiage

E: this is what I first selected and again comes off too strong and doesn't really get at the main point - the main point is the only reason for the action which is the end's value, not justifying the intended outcome

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?