Subscription pricing
That's really it - ya'll be warned. I was pretty sad about this :/
PT Questions
harlenesalh468
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
harlenesalh468
Wednesday, Jul 28 2021
Bit confused here - sure, let's say the conclusion was making a general conclusion about the entire population based on the sample included in this study, E would make sense to me. However, the conclusion is stating something general about the function of the pineal gland over time and not specifically about all old people aged 65-81. This is why I thought the conclusion was not flawed in the "unrepresentative sample" manner. Would appreciate input! #help
harlenesalh468
Tuesday, Sep 28 2021
for anyone confused, "daddy_descartes" gives a good explanation if you scroll down
harlenesalh468
Wednesday, Jul 28 2021
I struggled on this one, but here's how I eventually broke things down:
Premise: st (Scientific theory) --m--> pt (posited on theoretical ground)
Conclusion: this is flawed; what is flawed? designation of "real" given to us in sentence 1. We were told: if real designation approach X BUT since the conclusion tells us this approach is wrong we can infer /designation x --> /real (aka not real)
Plug this into our P --> C formula: if pt --> /real. Truthfully though, our premise said most so I wasn't looking for an "if all x --> Y" relationship. I was looking for an "if most x --> y" relationship. BUT we need to remember that this is pseudo sufficient assumption so the answer we pick will likely be A' --> B as opposed to A --> B.
harlenesalh468
Wednesday, Jul 28 2021
what exactly is the premise here? I had a feeling the last sentence was the conclusion but couldn't figure out what the exact support was #help
harlenesalh468
Tuesday, Jul 27 2021
economy of expression = say only what needs to be said
yup - didn't know that
harlenesalh468
Monday, Sep 27 2021
Idk why I didn't see the double negative in AC C - very stupid mistake on my part. We shall do better next time!
harlenesalh468
Monday, Jun 27 2022
"as many people consume coffee (cc) as consume .....psychoactive substances (ps)" --> cc > or = ps
I understand that this sentence means cc = ps but don't understand why it also means greater than. Would appreciate any thoughts on this!
harlenesalh468
Sunday, Sep 25 2022
When is it okay to assume that there is a binary divide? In this case, we can't assume that it's good soil/bad soil because there could be mediocre soil. What about if we are talking about rationality? Consider the following:
"Without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to dangerous ideas irrationally"
If we negate irrationally is it 1)Not irrationally or 2)Rationally? Is there a binary divide in this case?
I may just be overthinking this, but I'm a little confused #help
harlenesalh468
Monday, Jul 25 2022
I'm a little confused - e is referring to the year before the speed limit was introduced, so wouldn't that be 1989 (if the speed limit was introduced in 1990)? Why do the number of traffic fatalities in 1989 matter?
#help (Added by Admin)
harlenesalh468
Wednesday, Sep 22 2021
Equivocating flaws always trip me up - I never really catch when the passage uses two different versions of the same word. This is exactly why I wasn't too confident about eliminating A. Any tips? #help
harlenesalh468
Wednesday, Sep 22 2021
First of all, I didn't even know that something divinely inspired IS considered to be religious. I thought that was the goddamn assumption SMH
harlenesalh468
Tuesday, Jun 21 2022
"Warranted only" is throwing me off. If the premise states a condition, doesn't that condition HAVE TO be met in order for the conclusion to follow? I was looking for an answer that resulted in increased air traffic volume which would thereby explain the planned expansions. Would appreciate any thoughts!
#help (Added by Admin)
harlenesalh468
Tuesday, Sep 21 2021
The author assumes that high profits are the surest way to increase family prosperity. AC C states a situation where high profits (as a result of low wages) are NOT the surest way to increase family prosperity. This is the only AC that states why the PREMISE does not support the CONCLUSION. AC B states why the PREMISE does not support the PREMISE. That's how I reasoned it in my head.
Sometimes when there's a lot of info given in the form of premises, I just form a mental connection between all premises and expect that the correct AC may mention either one of the premises. In order to make it make sense for me, I could just as easily trigger the chain and connect the premises in my head. In this case, I went into the AC hoping to see something that states high profit does NOT equal increase in family prosperity. AC C states exactly that but in a less obvious way because it mentions low wages and not high profit. We are given the link (low wages --> high profit) in the passage so we can conclude that low wages --> high profit (correct premises) does not result in family prosperity (which is exactly what I was looking for).
harlenesalh468
Sunday, Sep 19 2021
I now understand the answer but my initial thought process was as follows: I assumed that all left and right handed people were part of a whole (so let's say 10 R handed and 20 L handed out of a 100 people total) as opposed to considering the percentage of R and L handed people in their own populations. Still a bit unsure as to why it is wrong to assume that they are part of the same whole - would appreciate any thoughts! #help
harlenesalh468
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021
"Adaptations to high raw-meat diet" in the last para threw me off. So adaptations due to cooking have resulted in our inability to eat as much raw food as previously possible. But in the last para we learn that adaptations to a high raw meat diet (doesn't this conflict with the first idea of cooked food + less raw meat??) could have also resulted in changes to our anatomy???
Can someone explain this to me! #help
harlenesalh468
Monday, Aug 16 2021
honestly I just laugh the pain away
harlenesalh468
Friday, Aug 13 2021
The first question threw me off. Wasn't the point of this passage to push for personal narrative as opposed to legal discourse? How are we assuming that personal narrative and legal narrative are the same thing? I instantly crossed out C because it said "legal narrative". I ended up choosing A because I interpreted "instructing them in the forms of discourse favored by legal insiders" as referring to discourse with emotional empathy - which as the passage states, IS favored by legal insiders. Would appreciate any thoughts! #help
harlenesalh468
Monday, Sep 13 2021
this passage definitely needs some requisite understanding lol
harlenesalh468
Monday, Sep 13 2021
"cannot be explained by economic interest alone"
Doesn't this mean imply that Drescher acknowledges there IS an economic part to it? Would appreciate input #help
harlenesalh468
Monday, Oct 11 2021
can the "opponent's hypothesis" be classified as a sub-conclusion? Just want to know for my own general knowledge as that's how I initially broke the sentences down #help
harlenesalh468
Sunday, Aug 01 2021
I really thought the LSAT test makers were trying to trick us with B because they said "trees near the orchards" and NOT orchards. How is that referential phrasing? Aren't they 2 different things? #help
Very high chances that I'm just overthinking this and need to sleep. BUT I'm almost certain that there have been similar answer choices in the past that JY has dismissed simply because they were not referencing exact subject matter in the stimulus.
This passage hurt me deeply