Subscription pricing
!
PT Questions
ieomoregbee811
- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Free
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jun 27 2023
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Thursday, Oct 27 2022
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Sunday, Sep 25 2022
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Sunday, Sep 25 2022
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Friday, Oct 21 2022
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Monday, Oct 17 2022
interested!
ieomoregbee811
Monday, Jul 10 2023
https://www.lsac.org/about/lsac-policies/lsac-candidate-agreement/ty23-24#permitted-items-tc
ieomoregbee811
Friday, Jan 10
LawHub does have the answer eliminator tool, it's the little eye icon to the right of each answer! And I think that reading the passages separately is actually a great strategy, definitely not just for beginners
ieomoregbee811
Thursday, Jul 06 2023
"Game time tracking" is just tracking the amount of time you spend initially looking at and setting up a game. It stops when you move to a question because it's then tracking the amount of time you spend on each question.
So it is accurate because it does track the total time spent on a game, you only need to click "continue game time tracking" if you're going back to your initial setup and not working on a specific question.
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
In order to accurately compare 1970 to current-day they are taking away another changed variable: change in healthcare quality aka change in survival rates from violent crime/serious injuries.
Essentially, they are saying than many more people receive possibly fatal injuries annually current-day than did in annually in 1970. It is only the fact that health care is much better now (compared to 1970) that is the reason those people do not die, and therefore are not counted in the murder statistics. That counters the validity of the city official using specifically murder rates to prove that there is less violent crime. Rather, E would suggest that there is more violent crime, just less murders.
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
The question stimulus tells us that older people have fewer reasons to save than young people. It then concludes that if the average age of the populations continue to rise (ie: if the population contains relatively more old people) then the national savings rates will continue to drop, and there is an implied "because older people save less than young people" at the end of the conclusion.
However, that conclusion is not something we have evidence for. The evidence the conclusion relies on is the fact that "older people have fewer reasons to save than do younger people" but the number of reasons old people have to save does not tell us about how much old people actually save. For example, as answer choice D says, the strength of those reasons is not being considered. If we think about this, even if older people have fewer reasons to save than younger people, if their reasons are stronger then they might actually save more than younger people. So D is correct.
Incorrect:
A- We don't need to know the reasons that younger people have for saving money or which of those reasons is the strongest in order to evaluate the argument
B- This brings up a negative savings rate, which is not even mentioned in the stimulus/conclusion
C- They never assert that the population of certain nations is currently rising, just that IF the average age continues to rise, then XX will happen.
E- After-tax vs. before-tax income has nothing to do with the argument made
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
The correct answer is C because the claim that "one can be at home without being in one's house" is a claim that is compatible with either the truth or falsity of the conclusion because technically it does not directly connect to the conclusion.
The second sentence of the stimulus is the one that directly connects to the conclusion; paraphrased the second sentence tells us that you don't necessarily have to be at home for it to be possible for you to be in your house and the conclusion reads "being at home is not required for being in one's own house." These are telling us the same thing.
However, this question is asking about the first sentence, which paraphrased tells us that you don't necessarily have to be in your house for it to be possible for you to be at home. This could remain true whether or not the conclusion was true or false.
If that's confusing here's a simpler analogy to consider: someone claims that "Something doesn't have to be a square for it to be a rectangle" and then they conclude that "Something doesn't have to be a rectangle for it to be a square."
How are that claim and conclusion related? They're not. The claim could remain true whether or not the conclusion was true or false (and in this case it would be false).
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
The book argues people who are successful in business (sufficient condition) have benefitted from a lot of luck (necessary condition).
It can be diagrammed like this: success --> luck
The stimulus them goes on the say that the argument is false because rather success (sufficient condition) requires a lot of hard work (necessary condition).
It can be diagrammed like this: success --> hard work
This is an error of reasoning because the stimulus implies that if "success --> hard work" is true then "success --> luck" must be false. However, both of these can be true as the same time.
C is correct because if the book author's argument had been misinterpreted as them saying that anyone who is lucky is successful (luck [sufficient condition] --> success [necessary condition]), then this would be at odds with the "success --> hard work" principle. It would suggest that luck alone is sufficient to be successful; this is something we know to be false based on the last sentence of the stimulus. However, that is not what the book said; rather is said "success --> luck".
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
If A ALWAYS causes B then yes you can take the contrapositive: if you don't have B you also don't have A. But if A simply CAN cause B but doesn't always, then there is no contrapositive to be taken.
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
Pamela's argument is that long shifts negatively affects physicians' decision making and Quincy's argument is that given that physicians decisions have generally been good despite the long shifts, the effect on physicians' decision making must be non-consequential so there is no reason to make a change to a system that works. B is the choice that best weakens Quincy's argument because it suggests that there is reason to believe that what have worked in the past will no longer work effectively given a change in the population of patients being treated; the current day population of patients is generally sicker than in the past and it can be assumed that the argument that "long shifts negatively affect physicians' decision making" now IS consequential is a valid argument.
If anything, C offers a principle that would strengthen Quincy's argument, given that the best way to ensure continuity of care is by having physicians work longer shifts.
ieomoregbee811
Tuesday, Jul 04 2023
yes, you're allowed to have scratch paper! Six blank sheets of paper for testing remotely and I believe they'll provide the scratch paper books for testing in person.
https://www.lsac.org/about/lsac-policies/lsac-candidate-agreement/ty23-24#permitted-items-tc (#s14 & 15)
interested!