jamiesonramsey631

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

General · Trouble accessing PrepTests

jamiesonramsey631

Wednesday, Aug 12 2020

Good afternoon,

Thanks for your help, you solved my issue!

General

•

Tuesday, Aug 11 2020

jamiesonramsey631

Trouble accessing PrepTests

Good evening all,

For some reason I can't access any PrepTests. Fortunately I am done with the LSAT, but I forgot that I had to do a writing sample (lol), so I just came on to look at a few previous writing sections. My account is set to expire in 4 days and the message that I get when I try to access tests is that I am not linked to an LSAT Prep Plus account. I never had this issue/this message never came up before and I was using preptests on this site long after the transition to the LSAC Prep Plus stuff. I am wondering if anyone can help me clear up this issue?

Thanks!!

PrepTests ·

PT150.S3.Q24

jamiesonramsey631

Wednesday, May 13 2020

because there is no conditional relationship in the stimulus that tells us reduce trade deficit -> help economy. The stimulus only tells us (in the second sentence) that the trade deficit is so high that it hurts the economy...that doesn't allow us to draw a conditional that says if you reduce the trade deficit, you will help the economy.

PrepTests ·

PT130.S4.Q5

jamiesonramsey631

Friday, Jan 17 2020

For future takers...answer choice (A) has tricky wording, but I think you misread it slightly...

Consider: ONLY top employees work at the top management firms vs. ONLY the top management firms have top employees.

The first phrase means that the top firms have only top consultants. The second phrase says only the top firms have the top consultants.

Answer choice (A) says the first, not the second. I think that subtle distinction is where your misunderstanding is.

PrepTests ·

PT128.S2.Q20

jamiesonramsey631

Saturday, Dec 21 2019

Totally agree, I think this video doesn't explain the actual problem with answer choice (E). It shouldn't be eliminated because of the sort of minor language differences pointed out in the video. It should be eliminated for the more fundamental reason that the answer choice says a method that can NEVER distinguish is useless. But that doesn't describe the new method pointed to in the stimulus. The geologist didn't say that the new method could NEVER distinguish between small and powerful. The geologist states that the new method can only predict the severity of an earthquake within a range and therefore some mistakes will be made (i.e. geologist didn't say that it will always be wrong in it's prediction of the severity of an earthquake).

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q17

jamiesonramsey631

Sunday, Dec 08 2019

The stimulus said the the only time people defer is when they don't have experience ((except in the stimulus), so it is a necessary condition.

So the stimulus says:

Defer → ~~direct experience~~

That doesn't mean when they don't have experience they will defer (i.e. not having direct experience is not a sufficient condition). So they may just ignore the reports anyway.

PrepTests ·

PT124.S4.P4.Q24

jamiesonramsey631

Wednesday, Nov 20 2019

I think JY missed something for Q 24 (c) that I found key to picking this answer (I eliminated all answers at first and then came back)...namely the use of "control certain pest populations". The answer choice is expressly limiting the application of this statement to certain pest populations, which in this case I took to mean C mite populations. If it didn't have this language I'm not sure that it would be supported, because the author only says it is sometimes more effective to use natural predators...I don't think the language in the passage supports the idea that the only time we should use insecticides is when natural predators aren't working, insecticides may be the most effective means in many cases....any thoughts on this?

Also, I think (E) is way off in saying generally...all the author says is sometimes predators are the best method (and one example is given), this is much different than saying predators are usually more effective.

PrepTests ·

PT138.S3.Q20

jamiesonramsey631

Saturday, Oct 19 2019

Valid argument? Conditional logic? Explanation here seems off

PrepTests ·

PT138.S4.Q20

jamiesonramsey631

Thursday, Sep 05 2019

For future LSAT takers, I don't think (D) is sufficient. The answer precludes anything from filling the gap, but it doesn't prove that television itself does not allow viewers to exercise their imagination just as much as radio previously did.

PrepTests ·

PT138.S4.Q13

jamiesonramsey631

Thursday, Sep 05 2019

Yes good principle, the same could be said for "some" on the test, I immediately think they are referring to one or two people.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S4.Q25

jamiesonramsey631

Sunday, Aug 25 2019

I think you can eliminate all other answer choices just based on their conclusions not matching the structure of the original argument.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q24

jamiesonramsey631

Thursday, Jun 20 2019

Wrong answer explanations

(a)The "some" is what does it for this answer. Some doesn't really tell us anything because "some" could be two people. If there are a few people who own pets that are happier than most people who don't own pets, then what is said in the conclusion "most people who own pets are less happy" could still be true (i.e. everyone else who owns a pet besides these few people are less happy than everyone else who doesn't own a pet).

(b) Tells us nothing about how pets may contribute to happiness. We have no idea why they wish they had pets.

(c) Reasonably happy doesn't tell us much. The conclusion is about being "as happy as possible" and we have nothing to judge "reasonably happy" against

(e) Being unhappy sometimes doesn't really tell us much. Is this for one minute a day they feel unhappy? It doesn't really tell us much about overall happiness. Also even if they are unhappy sometimes the people who own pets could be unhappy more often.