- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
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).
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
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.
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..
It's so hard figuring out when to use outside knowledge and when to not.
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.
harmeet96357
Questions for those who worked their way to max 5 wrong on LR (per section) with or without a tutor
Any strategies/tips for improving?
How many weeks did it take you to see improvement whether you solely self-studied or did a combo of self-study + tutor (1-2 sessions) every week?
And on that note, can anyone recommend a tutor that helps you by listening to your reasoning (i.e., for eliminating A/C and picking the correct AC) and telling you where said reasoning is flawed?
Honestly, I made an unwarranted assumption that led me to C. The flaw is simply the argument's conclusion (causation) made from that premise (correlation).
Re: the "imho" comment, *thumbs up. Good for you!
I did catch that component! I know that from the correlation, you can't make the conclusion made in the stimulus: reading label --> healthful behaviour
I was discussing my reasoning for selecting C. I thought the flaw was that the conditional should go the other way to make sense: healthful behaviour --> read label. That, I thought, would explain the relationship. Hence my reasoning behind selecting C.
BUT WAIT! I guess that could technically be a way of correcting the flaw BUT that's not what the question is asking! Maybe that would work for RRE.. kinda. As a flaw question, this is only asking us to identify the flaw: a correlation-causation one. *hand to forehead emoji
My initial approach (above) to this question was a mess.. I don't even know what happened. I blame exhaustion.
You're not an ass for helping me lol. I appreciate the reply. Your contributions are valuable!
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
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.
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
Welp.. if you still have it, I'd love to see what you have to say! I'm sure my comment as well as yours will help somebody who comes across this. And thank you, good luck to you too! Stay true to your motivational speeches haha
I think I got it.. we can't assume anything about K.
A - This doesn’t explain why K is passed over. D is picked over K because D would be the most productive - no mention of that.
B - Does K work for the company already or not? Because if K does AND K is fully qualified, D wouldn’t be hired.
C - This doesn’t tell us whether K is fully qualified or not. We need to know certainly to know how to proceed. Because, again, if K is fully qualified, D wouldn’t be hired.
D - Okay, and are any of them qualified..? These are things we need to know!
E - Ah ha. None of the current employees are candidates. Candidates K and D don't work there. So we turn to this principle for a new hire. Accordingly, D, the most productive wins.
Ah wait.. is this supposed to be approached in a more straightforward manner? Lol
We need:
1. none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at Arvue Corporation currently works for the company
2. hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position
Re 1: K and D are fully qualified candidates for a new position at Arvue Corporation who currently do not work for the company
Re 2: Of the two, D is most productive. So we hire D.
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
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.
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
Well, they exist (currently) in the islands only. Only fossils were found in Australia meaning they once existed in Australia, but have since died out.
According to the stimulus, some made the move from Australia to the nearby islands and continued to thrive there.
The fact that you always write all of this out to study is absolutely amazing! May I ask, on average, how long it takes you to Blind Review each Prep Test?
*past tense if you're done your studying now
@edj2012441 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
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.