Community Profile

PT151.S2.Q18

harmeet96357

Friday, Dec 31 2021

A makes it clear that the termites cause the fairly circles by explaining how they do so

Regarding D, so what if termites are there (if that's what we assume) - how do we know that they are the ones creating the circles? All we know is that they are PRESENT. For all we know, the termites stroll around in the grasslands and little Pokemon zap the grasslands to create the circles lol

Or maybe it's really the termites' predators (the animals mentioned) that cause the fairy circles and the termites just like building their habitat in those specific areas due to the condition of the grass

0

General · Advice for Jan LSAT

harmeet96357

Friday, Dec 31 2021

Good advice here. And good strategy that you came up with (focusing on LR).

For RC, I would suggest that you invest your time upfront: slow down a little bit, read every word, and focus on understanding the passage. Now, this will mean you're spending at least an additional minute on reading before you jump into the questions. That's okay!

Importantly, fake it until you make it - pretend that the passage is interesting, and that you're learning something new. I swear it helps. Mentality is everything!

Make sure you're writing a low res summary for each paragraph and creating a map for the structure of the passage. Completely random example here: chocolate is healthy (theory) > chocolate is also unhealthy (problem) > dark chocolate in moderation (revised theory) > new way of marketing chocolate so kids make healthier choices (implications of solution).

Regarding the questions, use the passage! Don't rely on memory unless it's a general question. Remember, you can use Ctrl + F to search for keywords.

Depending on the score you're aiming for, another method is to skip either the last passage or the one with the least amount of questions - you make the call. Then you have 35 minutes/3 passages = a little over 11 minutes and 30 seconds per passage. Use this strategy with caution.

5

PrepTests ·

PT135.S1.Q8

harmeet96357

Friday, Dec 31 2021

Wow, I'm ashamed to admit that I thought it was C.

Argument claims: read label --> healthful behaviour. I thought it made sense the other way: healthful behaviour --> read label.

Is it not reasonable to think that because read label --> healthful behaviour doesn't make sense, LSAC is getting at the fact that people who already engage in healthful behaviour are the ones who read labels? Or do you have to consider real world knowledge: it's not that healthful behaviour ALWAYS means reading label - that's too strong. Perhaps it would work if it were healthful behaviour --> likely to read label.

Maybe the trick is that causation of closely related phenomenon is usually a correlation-causation flaw. Or something to do with the strength of the effect mentioned in the stimulus, as I mentioned above.

Anyone care to share their thoughts? #help

0

PrepTests ·

PT143.S4.Q19

harmeet96357

Thursday, Dec 30 2021

This is a really important question to learn from, but I'm so confused. This is a long one so bear with me. So we have:

FQCW = fully qualified candidate works for company

HMP = hire most productive

Principle: /FQCW --> HMP

First thing's first, we need the conclusion (I like to work in terms of strength of condition). Stimulus points to two options for hire: K and D. We know that K is not hired, so it must be D. The hire must be the most productive. So D is the most productive.

Our task involves producing this principle exactly so we also need /FQCW (not FQCW without the slash or the rule would fall away and be irrelevant) (is this right? #help) aka we need the cause that brings about the effect.

Cause: fully qualified candidate does NOT work for the company. Now here's where I am iffy:

Does the stimulus imply that K and D are going head to head because 1. the company does not have fully qualified internal candidates which is precisely why they have to turn to external candidates, both of which have to be fully qualified to even be considered?

Can we not assume that K works for the company already but isn't fully qualified? In that case, we would have /FQCW and consequently HMP (D).

I'm thinking the "because" implies that the ONLY reason K was passed over was because D was more productive. That means K IS fully qualified. K has to be fully qualified or there's no competition.. why would K be worth mentioning in the latter case? My suspicious self that thought maybe LSAC was trying to trick us here..

I hope this made sense.. #help

0

PrepTests ·

PT150.S1.P4.Q25

harmeet96357

Tuesday, Dec 21 2021

I think 25 C is trying to get us to make an assumption: that the fires were used to cook food/meat. But that's a stretch. We can't know what the fires were used for. What if they were used only to keep warm? We just don't know definitively.

2

LSAT · In tears. I did terrible.

harmeet96357

Saturday, Oct 16 2021

@ said:

aye monkeymammoth24 - first of all, that customer service lady/man is a BITCH. A DUMB BITCH ASS MONKEY LOOKIN MAMMOTH LOOKIN ASS BITCH. They got lice in their hair and their husband/wife despises them. That's a MBT.

Second of all, you got "24" on your name - where's that Mamba Mentality fam?? Two years of studying is nothing bruhv. Folks studied 3+ years on this forum and others before their success. Take inspiration from those crazy motherfuckers.

Thirdly, you gotta stop crying fam. I cry sometimes too but if you can't handle even this kind of pressure, law school and law in general will FUCK.YOU.UP. I'm not shaming you for crying trust me. I'm as big a wuss as they get, but I'm just giving you real talk fam.

Fourthly, you're in the UK. Please go watch a Tottemham Spurs game and sip some tea with your folks. Flip off the "royal guards" at Buckingham palace and enjoy a nice pastry. So much life out there in the UK!! fUK!!

Keep your head up kiddo - it ain't over til u say it is fam. HOly shit I'm so cringe.

this is the best pep talk i've ever seen

2

PrepTests ·

PT148.S2.P1.Q6

harmeet96357

Wednesday, Dec 15 2021

Gah, I eliminated C for #6 because I left open the assumption that "some" could mean only one which would not be strong enough to sway the fact referenced. How do we know not to do that in this case?

I think I would only be able to get to C by POE and by making an assumption that I'm unconfident about in terms of whether it can be made or not. #help

4

PrepTests ·

PT120.S3.Q16

harmeet96357

Tuesday, Jan 11 2022

Regarding A (trap answer) - No matter the size of the pie, more of the challenger's pie is always NEGATIVE - more than the incumbent's ever is even considering the size of their respective pie (which can be different).

In other words, given any number of hours of coverage on the challenger, over half of it is ALWAYS negative. Meanwhile, only 30% of the incumbent's ANY given pie is negative.

Disregarding bias, why is it that over half of all of their coverage is negative where as only 30% of the incumbent's any given pie is negative? Or how could this be the case? Ah ha, the challenger just sucks (B).

Thinking aloud.. I hope this helps someone down the line.

6

PrepTests ·

PT131.S1.Q10

harmeet96357

Tuesday, Jan 11 2022

Dammit, I thought it was A. Just because we now know that strenuous exercise can lower the risk, doesn't mean that walking can't also. If it weren't for the old/new element, this would be the flaw right? #help

I guess we have to be wary when old/new is discussed as per the tradition/novelty flaw (we can't be biased new > old).

0

PrepTests ·

PT121.S4.Q11

harmeet96357

Tuesday, Jan 11 2022

We can have:

T before P

T, /P

/T, P

This means T does NOT invariably (always) cause C, as in, it's not T --> P.

But that doesn't mean T CAN'T cause C, right? #help

So what can we call this flaw, if you will? Weak causation? #help

0

LSAT · A Conceptual Framework for finding the right answers for LR question types quickly (1+1=2)

harmeet96357

Tuesday, Jan 11 2022

These methods are INGENIOUS. Mike Ross, you need to trademark them!

I tried your WEAKEN method and I'll walk you and whoever else stumbles upon this thread through my application of it to my made-up example:

Weaken this:

P (1+1): Dogs are friendlier than cats.

C (2): Dogs are better than cats.

I know that we have to take the premise to be true (LSAT's rule, not mine). We CANNOT attack the premise. Nor the conclusion. Okay so, what is it that I am attacking?

It's the equal sign that I'm attacking. How can we make it that 1+1=2 is 1+1=/=2? In other words, how can I make it uncertain that C follows?

Well, we need to introduce a -1. For this, I'm going to come up with a random premise of my own. Let's do this!:

-1: But cats are more independent than dogs!

Now we have two competing premises: dogs are friendlier than cats AND cats are more independent than dogs. With that, is it still that true dogs are better than cats? Well, we don't know! It's subjective. I guess it depends on what you value more, your pet being friendlier or more independent (you can't make that call for LSAT).

Now to the A/Cs we go. I look for this -1 if by chance that's LSAT's OR I look for any other A/C that serves the same function (-1). Another equally valid -1, for example, would be cats are cleaner than dogs. finds a -1. Ding! Correct answer because this new piece of information (any -1) makes it uncertain that dogs are better than cats.

Crystal clear!

Fun fact: did you know that cats spend 30-50% of the day grooming themselves?! And they like to "groom" each other and their human too.

2

PrepTests ·

PT139.S1.Q5

harmeet96357

Thursday, Jan 06 2022

In selecting A, I walked right into their trap. I made the assumption that exercising regularly damages your connective tissue/may cause arthritis. But we absolutely can't assume that - we don't know enough to do so. For all we know, regular exercise prevents connective tissue damage/arthritis. We just can't make any assumptions here.

And on second thought, based on general knowledge, the former can't be right. Exercise, assuming you're doing it correctly, is great for you. Maybe exercise in excessive amounts can be harmful (I don't know, but I doubt it), but it's highly unlikely that regularly exercise can be..

2

General · What is the most common answer choice on the LSAT?

harmeet96357

Wednesday, Jan 05 2022

Out of curiosity, do we have updated stats?

2

General · prep test advice?

harmeet96357

Sunday, Jan 02 2022

Definitely 4 to build your stamina. Imo, I don't think PT'ing 3 sections will be beneficial - unless you need to ease into taking longer tests. In that case, I would first suggest doing single timed sections before you get into PT'ing at all.

For the test, you have to be able to do 4 sections and you won't know which section is the experimental, so you have to give every section your all.

0

Discussions

Questions for those who worked their way to max 5 wrong on LR (per section) with or without a tutor

Confirm action