Self-study
Is the June LSAT going to be 3 sections or 4 sections? I keep getting different answers and just wanted to make sure.
PT Questions
jainanika53371
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
jainanika53371
Sunday, May 19 2024
We want to resolve the discrepancy in the argument. The discrepancy is white + black doesn't provide camouflage. They have no other adaptations. So how do black and white stripes = no eat me? The answer is because the black and white fools the dumb predators even though its not real camouflage. So its not really making an assumption. It's saying that it acts like camouflage, yes, but that's not an assumption we are making. We are just adding a fact that the predator species preceive color differently which then by extension means that the black and white does act like camouflage.
E makes an actual assumption that these predators are going to only be active at night.
jainanika53371
Sunday, May 19 2024
I can sort of see the parallel reasoning argument you are making. Like oh if everyone collects taxes then it's not cruel.
But the stimulus already says that these acts are outrageous. So if you were to apply parallel reasoning it would go like :
Caligula is doing some cruel acts. Some other ruler is doing the same acts. That doesn't make the acts less cruel just because a lot of people are doing it. The stimulus already says these acts are cruel -- we can't refute that they are cruel. So if it's true all the emperors are doing an act that doesn't weaken the argument.
I think what you are doing is applying parallel reasoning like this: Caligula is doing some acts. Another ruler is too. Therefore these acts are not cruel. But we can't do this because the argument has said that acts are cruel.
However, I don't think parallel reasoning is the way to go here because the stimulus states that these are "specific outrageous acts". So the stimulus is telling us that these are not acts that are likely to have been committed by multiple people. So now we think ok so there is this outrageous, specific thing someone did and now you are telling me that two people did it? That doesn't make sense.
jainanika53371
Saturday, May 18 2024
In the rattlesnake question the claim is that ONLY the brittleness of the tail is standing in the way of us determining the age. So for that claim to be true there must be nothing else other than brittleness that might alter the tail in a way that would make it hard for us to tell the age.
Here the claim is we can use lighting discharge to indicate cloud altitude as a replacement for weather radars. So we are trying to find a missing premise between not having radars, and the relationship between altitude and lighting to show that this means we can use lighting as an indicator.
If the question had said:
Altitude could be determined by lighting discharge frequency if not for xyz. But if xyz was not present then we could use lighting discharge as a way to indicate height.
Then the correct answer would be E: nothing else except for xyz affects lighting discharge therefore cloud size does not affect lighting discharge.
jainanika53371
Saturday, May 18 2024
This is how I am thinking about it:
The reason we are not asking "why is T more popular than M despite having worse food?" is because the question is asking how we can justify the CRITICS reasoning. We are not trying to justify the discrepancy in general. So how do we connect the critic's reasoning to his conclusion?
Basically, we are trying to stick up for this poor critic because nobody is taking him seriously.
He says "It makes sense that T has worse food but is more popular because T is at a much more convenient location"
Everyone else says "Nuh uh we don't think so. T being at a more convenient location doesn't explain why it can have worse food and still be popular"
But we are like "Actually no, what the critic is saying DOES make sense because by being at a more convenient location T isn't motivated to improve the food"
This is why the question we ask ourselves is "Why does T being at a convenient location explain why it has worse food and is still popular?"
Because if you are at a good location you don't have to worry about the food being bad.
I think the reason that E is incorrect is because there is not a condition that is being mistaken for the necessary condition. A conclusion is not a condition. Yes, if we assumed the conclusion was true then the argument would be true -- but that is the case for any argument. You could just assume that the conclusion was true but then what? That's basically just converting the conclusion into a premise but it doesn't prove anything. The only thing in this question is that the conclusion just happens to be a conclusion that is consistent with the premises. But the real problem with the argument is that it fails to consider the other ways the premises could be true therefore the conclusion is draws is incorrect.
For this conclusion to be more correct we need it to evaluate other possible distributions of the apts in the houses.