Discussions

jniuboston201

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT120.S1.Q19

jniuboston201

Thursday, Nov 24 2016

No. Because C doesn't address the argument, which is that we should change the vaccine because an alternative is better somehow.

From this perspective, who cares if OPV is already good? What matters is whether IPV is better. To strengthen, you would need statements that make IPV even better than OPV.

PrepTests ·

PT145.S1.P3.Q19

jniuboston201

Wednesday, Sep 21 2016

I'm surprised about 19. I decided between A and E, but went with A. I knew E was defensible, but I thought A was more relevant to the author's point.

To me (and I may be wrong), passage A is all about how the transition from women's history to gender, while positive, also "overlooks" how women engages with the world, causing women's stories to "recede into the background," and that something was "lost" in this process. To me, the main point was that the integration of women's history into mainstream history cannot stop at studies of gender, i.e. it is incomplete.

Passage B demonstrated an example of analysis that looks at "gender" rather than "women's history." To me, this exemplifies the need to push beyond gender and further integrate women's history by including their actual stores.

PrepTests ·

PT133.S1.Q7

jniuboston201

Sunday, Sep 18 2016

I was kind of shocked by how well everyone else did. I didn't think E weakened at all. The epidemic was 430 BCE. A lot could have changed since then - urbanization, population density, medical knowledge and access - that could naturally explain why Ebola epidemic since are "shorter-lived."

PrepTests ·

PT146.S3.Q18

jniuboston201

Saturday, Sep 10 2016

The key is the "too." I think if the argument had just said "often," then the last sentence would be the conclusion. "Retailers use promotions often. Promotions of this sort cuts into profits."

But with the "too," it becomes a judgement (inherently a negative thing). "You smoke too much. Smoking is bad for you." Or "You eat too much." "So what?" "Well, you're packing extra calories."

PrepTests ·

PT131.S2.Q20

jniuboston201

Friday, Sep 02 2016

I think D might be easier to see using an analogy.

Law mandates that no more than 5% of your wardrobe should be red. Inspectors select some of your clothing and found 20% red. Thus you broke the law.

In this case, saying that "inspectors tend to choose clothing that looks red" obviously, unquestionably weakens the argument.

PrepTests ·

PT130.S1.Q5

jniuboston201

Sunday, Aug 28 2016

I think the problem with C here isn't just that it's attacking the premise. If C had said "many people are allergic to herbs," then I think it's a great weaken answer against the conclusion you should always use herbs.

The problem is the "certain medicine", which could include herbs, but also could not. We don't know if herbs are included. To see this using an analogy, suppose the argument is: "Because ice cream tastes good, you should always eat it." C would be like saying, "Certain foods are very salty and do not promote health."

PrepTests ·

PT142.S4.Q14

jniuboston201

Saturday, Aug 27 2016

To me, the key reason why E is wrong is the word "like lying." The stimulus doesn't say that other people consider withholding information lying, just that "like lying," it's also unethical.

E would be accurate if the argument had said "some argue that this is also lying...but no, there is a distinction between preventing false belief and actively encouraging one. Thus, withholding information is not lying, even though lying is wrong."

But instead, the "like lying" meant that the stimulus isn't applying a moral principle (not lying) to two cases. It's more of comparing two cases to see if they are both unethical, which is A.

PrepTests ·

PT138.S3.Q21

jniuboston201

Saturday, Aug 20 2016

I eliminated D for a different reason.

I don't think the stimulus concludes that Riley's argument was false. Instead, the stimulus says that we should not regard the president's speech as inflammatory "solely on the basis of Riley's testimony," given her conflict on interests.

I actually find this an entirely legitimate use of Riley's testimony. The argument is only saying that her testimony cannot solely implicate the president, but leaves open the idea that the testimony could in some small way support an implication. This is not the same as saying that the claim was "false."

PrepTests ·

PT135.S1.Q18

jniuboston201

Sunday, Aug 14 2016

Another reason why A is wrong:

Stimulus said: "people...tried...domesticate each of the wild large meal species that seemed worth domesticating."

Notice the qualifier here: "that seemed worth domesticating." So it's not required for them to domesticate every single large mammal, which is what A says.

General · How to get access to Admissions Starter package?

jniuboston201

Thursday, Jun 09 2016

@7sagestudentservices

Could you add me as well? Thanks!

General · Dealing with the Wait

jniuboston201

Tuesday, Jun 07 2016

@cal6005360 I'm going to miss the grind of studying and constantly striving to improve.

I'm in the same boat. I have a full time job, and there were many days of work, LSAT, sleep, repeat. I kind of got used to and maybe "liked" the routine, because I felt focused. When I walked out of the exam, I felt "lost" for a second - what the hell am I going to do when I get home?

But that's all psychological. There's a lot of things you wanted to do throughout the prep time, and you should remember them and do them. There were a lot of friends, films, and fun that I need to catch up with.

But the battle is not over for me yet. Not until the scores come back and I decide if I need to re-take. So for me, I think of this wait time as the temporary respite before the next charge. Improvements doesn't stop here.

PrepTests ·

PT145.S2.Q24

jniuboston201

Saturday, Jun 04 2016

"if they don’t know that they are hurt by them, then how can they oppose them"

That is your assumption. You have to know you are hurt by something ----> oppose something.

That's a pretty big assumption even in the real world.

PrepTests ·

PT145.S2.Q24

jniuboston201

Saturday, Jun 04 2016

The problem is the gap between the premise and conclusion. So what most people oppose tariffs? Does that mean politicians will likely be reelected if they vote against tariffs? There goes the assumption spelled out in A.

PrepTests ·

PT145.S2.Q24

jniuboston201

Saturday, Jun 04 2016

It's irrelevant whether they know they would be hurt. What matters is that "most people oppose such tariffs." Negating E doesn't hurt the argument.

Consider: there are 10 people in this country, 2 of whom are hurt by tariffs. 6 people oppose tariffs, but none of the 6 are of the 2 who are actually hurt. Does it matter that those who are hurt don't know that about this fact? No. What matters is that "most people oppose tariffs."

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q15

jniuboston201

Thursday, Jun 02 2016

Looking at it more, I think the key here is to understand what it means for something to be "ill conceived."

It doesn't mean "without which the outcome is worse." Rather, it means, "an alternative could have been better."

Once you realize that, B is pretty damn good. If external factors ("economic factors") limited sales already, then it reduced the likelihood that an alternative could be better. This reasoning attacks the support bad sales --> campaign ill conceived.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q15

jniuboston201

Thursday, Jun 02 2016

Damn. I looked at this a few time, and I agree with the comments posted already. A is wrong because "competitor's ad campaign" is not the same as "advice of a competing consultant." We have no idea if they are the same (which is a dumb word-play trick).

But even if you assume they are the same, A is still wrong, because A is compatible with the conclusion that the campaign is "ill conceived." Who cares that sales could be lower without the ad campaign? The point is that sales could be higher if the campaign was better designed, and thus the campaign was "ill conceived."

A would be correct for a different conclusion, say "Thus, the ad campaign did not contribute to sales positively." Or "Thus, the ad campaign negatively impacted sales." Then you can say, nope, it helped a little bit.

I'm not sure how you would realize this on timed exam. I think the key is to pay attention to the conclusion, and make sure the flaw appropriately addresses that conclusion.

PrepTests ·

PT127.S2.Q20

jniuboston201

Wednesday, May 25 2016

C is also wrong for enlarging the scope of the argument.

C: "psychotherapy should never be provided..."

Stimulus argues that psychotherapists (People) should not do X, not when psychotherapy (Action) cannot be done. What if I offer high quality psychotherapy? The argument only says psychotherapist shouldn't do it on TV. I'm not forbidden.

LSAT · PT72.S2.Q10 - council chair: the traditional code

jniuboston201

Tuesday, May 24 2016

Thanks @jniuboston201 and @quinnxzhang542!

PrepTests ·

PT148.S3.Q16

jniuboston201

Tuesday, May 24 2016

The key is to see that the argument isn't saying that contemporary art has zero aesthetic points. It's saying it cannot add more points to people, given that there are all these other arts out there.

In this case, saying that the other arts affect the aesthetic value of contemporary art is irrelevant. It's simply not the flaw of the argument.

Another way to see it is: suppose everyone has a scale of 1-10 of aesthetic fulfillment (10 being the max). The argument is saying that, given all the art out there, you can max out 10 already, so contemporary art doesn't "enable people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled." The assumption is that everyone is already at 10, and contemporary art can't add more.

E says, because other arts exist, the contemporary art dropped from an aesthetic value of 2 to 1. So what? That's simply not the flaw in the argument.

On the other hand, D points out that some people aren't maxed out, because they are "severely restricted" from accessing the other art.

LSAT

•

Monday, May 23 2016

jniuboston201

PT72.S2.Q10 - council chair: the traditional code

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-10/

I have a quick question regarding #10 from PT72, S2 (the Parliamentary Procedure question), specifically answer D. I bounced back and forth between C and D, and even though I knew D is wrong, I couldn't eliminate it.

Question is reproduced below (it's a Weaken question):

"The traditional code of parliamentary procedure contains a large number of obscure, unnecessary rules, which cause us to quibble interminably over procedural details and so to appear unworthy of public confidence. Admittedly, the code is entrenched and widely accepted. But success in our endeavors depends on the public's having confidence in our effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that we adopt the alternative code, which has been in successful use elsewhere for several years."

D: It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence.

The argument is: given X (traditional code, quibble, unworthy of public confidence), thus Y (adopt alternative code). D sounds as though it's slightly weakening the argument by pointing out that it's not always reasonable to do Y given X (to adopt alternative code given the goal of public confidence). What am I missing here?

Obviously, I realized that I am assuming "if X is not always reasonable, then don't do it." Is that the rub? Thanks!

PrepTests ·

PT134.S3.Q14

jniuboston201

Sunday, May 22 2016

I wonder why this question is hard. It's a cookie cutter flaw. I missed this because this question happened to be my first time seeing this type of flaw, but that can't be true for everyone else.

PrepTests ·

PT134.S2.Q24

jniuboston201

Saturday, May 21 2016

What an amazing apple is not orange question, literally!

PrepTests ·

PT140.S2.Q13

jniuboston201

Wednesday, May 18 2016

That sounds like an assumption to me.

Job Satisfaction --> Productivity Increase

LSAT · PT70.S1.Q24 - many homeowners regularly add commercial fertilizers

jniuboston201

Monday, May 16 2016

@quinnxzhang542 the conditional is either unsupported or else subtly irrelevant.

Ah, there's the rub.

The key problem is the assumption: Micro Depleted --> No Micro, because "No Micro" could mean "long enough to harm health" or "for a second." In this case, it means "for a second." If micro is depleted, then temporarily, there is no micro.

However, in the context of "No Micro --> /Health," the "No Micro" means "long enough to harm health," which is a rather different.

Not sure why this wasn't apparent at the time. I was really focused on the group one logic indicator. Thanks a bunch. I appreciate the quick response.

LSAT · PT70.S1.Q24 - many homeowners regularly add commercial fertilizers

jniuboston201

Monday, May 16 2016

@quinnxzhang542 The stimulus doesn't allow us to conclude this.

Thanks for the comment. I thought the last sentence covered this?

"micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Another way to say that is "when grass clippings are raked up, micronutrients are depleted."

Isn't that a conditional statement?