jonathanpalacios646

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

General

•

Saturday, Oct 16 2021

jonathanpalacios646

170s scorers-- 30 minute 1-on-1 Zoom to share insights?

Hi! I'm PT'ing 170-174 and am posting to ask if anyone else who consistently scores above 170 would like to have a 30 minute 1-on-1 Zoom call with me, in which we can take turns presenting the most valuable insights we've had in our studies so far. These insights can be general or specific-- whatever has helped you most!

I've completed the core curriculum and so personally would like to use our Zoom call as an opportunity to discuss insights outside the core curriculum. There will probably be a little bit of repetition/overlap, but let's mostly try to break new ground!

I can spend about 1/2 hour presenting the following:

30 LR patterns that have helped me most (about 1/2 of these are not at all covered in the core curriculum)

1 'in-out game' diagramming method (I came up with this), that allows me to quickly determine maximum in/ maximum out; this method accommodates 'forked' and 'chained' not-both/or rules

10 specific LR practices that I employ (most are covered in at least one of J.Y.'s explanation videos, but these 10 are advanced, pretty subtle, and what have helped me most)

1 RC annotation method that works for me

2 RC passage reading habits that work for me

20 content specific insights that have to do with RC question/AC wording that's commonly used

Message me personally if you're interested and we can set up a time! In your message, feel free to let me know what you've been scoring and maybe give a super brief preview of what you might want to present.

Best of luck to everyone in their studies! :D

PrepTests ·

PT113.S1.P2.Q13

jonathanpalacios646

Saturday, Oct 16 2021

"Mechanism" strictly describes the physical succession of things that are causally related, whereas "theory" describes how mechanisms give rise to emergent phenomena like behaviors and patterns.

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q21

jonathanpalacios646

Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

Yes! It's necessary for both to sometimes reciprocate affection. We have to match all parts of the analogy which is to say:

1. Chimps that give affection are protected

2. Humans that give affection are protected

3. Chimps that receive affection are protected

4. Humans that receive affection are protected

We are already provided with points 1 and 4, we therefore must substantiate points 2 and 3.

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q21

jonathanpalacios646

Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

Thanks for the response! I'll have to think about it more but I appreciate the input!

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q21

jonathanpalacios646

Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

Thanks again for the thoughtful response! Just one counterpoint this time-- since this is a necessary assumption question, isn't the task to identify unstated information that would make the argument work? In other words, isn't the necessary assumption inherently unstated? So it's not really that I'm assuming humans sometimes reciprocate affection; rather, I'm identifying unstated information that is supposedly needed to make the argument work.

For an illustration of this point, think about the correct answer-- that chimps sometimes reciprocate affection. The passage doesn't state this assumption anywhere, and yet it is the correct answer. Similarly, the passage doesn't state that humans sometimes reciprocate affection, and yet if we assume this to be true, then it is unnecessary for chimps to sometimes reciprocate affection. This is because, if humans sometimes reciprocate affection, this means there are protected humans that give affection and protected chimps that give affection. In this way, we establish the "matching parts" in this argument by analogy.

As such, I'm not suggesting that "humans sometimes reciprocate affection" is a necessary assumption, but rather that neither of the two assumptions are necessary.

That being said, my reasoning is obviously flawed somehow, because AC B is the correct answer. I'm just struggling to pinpoint exactly how it is flawed. I think my confusion might have something to do with not understanding why it is acceptable to identify the unstated assumption that "chimps sometimes reciprocate," but NOT the unstated assumption that "humans sometimes reciprocate." Do you have any thoughts on this last point?

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q21

jonathanpalacios646

Wednesday, Sep 22 2021

A few counterpoints (I really appreciate your response by the way!)

1. You said we don’t know anything about “protected humans.” However, based on the idea that humans protect other humans toward whom they have affection, we can infer that the humans that are being protected are those that receive affection.

2. If we assume that humans sometimes reciprocate affection, then we know that there are protected humans that give affection, and also that there are protected chimps that give affection (as per the stimulus). Therefore, if we establish that humans reciprocate affection, we can conclude (without answer choice B having to be true) that affection plays the same role in chimp and human communities.

3. I don’t see how what I said in my first post assumes answer choice B to be correct. Can you elaborate?

Thanks in advance for your response!

PrepTests ·

PT150.S2.Q21

jonathanpalacios646

Tuesday, Sep 21 2021

Couldn't we conclude that affection plays the same role in either group if we showed that humans are like chimps (ie. humans sometimes reciprocate affection)? Doesn't that mean that answer choice B is not necessary? #help

PrepTests ·

PT110.S3.Q14

jonathanpalacios646

Monday, Aug 09 2021

A sub-conclusion is a conclusion.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S2.Q6

jonathanpalacios646

Friday, Aug 06 2021

Mistaken understanding of the stimulus: I was initially confused because I thought "Alright, so Earth's crust is too thin to support the weight of a huge volcano under the conditions present on Earth." This erroneous understanding of the stimulus allowed me to entertain the possibility that Mars might have an equally thin crust, but because Mars' volcanoes might be under different conditions (ie. for example, less erosion), huge volcanoes might still exist on Mars. In other words, I thought that huge volcanoes could still exist despite a planet having thin crust.

Correct understanding of the stimulus: There are three things that determine how much mass a crust can support.

1) thickness of the crust

2) composition of the crust

3) gravity acting upon the crust

The stimulus tells us that when we jointly consider 1) a crust of Earth's thickness, 2) with the composition of Earth's crust, 3) acted upon by Mars' gravity, this crust will be unable to support huge volcanoes. As such, we know that if Mars' crust was equally thick, had the same composition, and was subject to Mar's gravity, then it too would be unable to support huge volcanoes. Notice that the latter 2/3 of those conditions are met. If all 3 conditions were met, then there would be no huge volcanoes on Mars. However, there ARE huge volcanoes on Mars, which means (via the contrapositive) that Mars' crust is not the same thickness as Earth's crust in at least some spots. Common sense tells us that the crust must be therefore be thicker in at least some spots.

PrepTests ·

PT104.S1.Q5

jonathanpalacios646

Friday, Jul 23 2021

You’re right: answer choice C would be stronger if it said that all art with the aesthetic qualities mentioned is esteemed by the Japanese. In this case, we would know for sure that the Japanese have a preference for the aesthetic qualities of the European impressionist paintings.

That being said, answer choice C simply says that several pieces of art with the aesthetic qualities mentioned are esteemed by the Japanese. This correlation strengthens (but does not necessitate) the causal explanation that if a piece of art has the aesthetic qualities in question, then the Japanese have a preference for those aesthetic qualities. Since we know that the European impressionist paintings have those aesthetic qualities, we therefore know (as per the causal explanation that I just pointed out) that Japanese collectors have a preference for the aesthetic qualities in the European impressionist art.

Either way, answer choice C strengthens the idea that Japanese collectors have a preference for the aesthetic qualities in the European impressionist art. This strengthens the argument that the Japanese collectors bought the art due to this preference, because now we at least have reason to believe that the Japanese collectors actually did have a preference for the aesthetic qualities of the European impressionist art.

PrepTests ·

PT104.S1.Q5

jonathanpalacios646

Thursday, Jul 22 2021

This post explains the following very important principle: if you want to argue that "Jim can dunk because he's tall," you first have to support the idea that "Jim is tall." The rest of the post applies said principle in the context of the 'Japanese collectors' problem.

The problem with J.Y.'s justification:

J.Y. doesn't explain, based on answer choice C, the logical reasoning that supports the notion that the Japanese collectors actually are preferential towards the aesthetic qualities of the European impressionist art. This is an essential first step because the only way to conclude that "the Japanese collector's made their purchase due to the fact that they were preferential towards the aesthetic qualities of the art," one must first establish that the Japanese collectors actually are preferential towards the aesthetic qualities of the art. It's like saying, "Jim can dunk because he's tall," without ever supporting the notion that Jim is tall in the first place.

What J.Y. should have also said

The reasoning that supports that the Japanese collectors actually are preferential towards the aesthetic qualities of the art is correlational reasoning. Answer choice C says that [multiple] Japanese prints all contain certain aesthetic qualities and that Japanese people esteem these prints. In other words, there is a correlation between A) a print having these certain aesthetic qualities, and B) Japanese people esteeming the print. This positive correlation strengthens the notion that, if a print contains these aesthetic qualities, Japanese people will esteem the print.

Recall that some examples of European impressionist art have these same aesthetic qualities (answer choice C tells us this). Using the causal logic described above, we can now conclude that, the Japanese people must esteem these examples of European impressionist art. Furthermore, the causal logic described above implies that the Japanese people esteem these examples of European impressionist art because the art contains those certain aesthetic qualities mentioned before. In other words, the Japanese collectors actually are preferential towards the aesthetic qualities of the European art. In terms of my 'dunking' analogy, what I just strengthened was the notion that "Jim is tall." In turn, this strengthens the conclusion that "Jim can dunk because he's tall."

An important reminder

Answer choice C doesn't support the argument such that the conclusion is necessarily correct. In fact, even when you assume that the information in answer choice C is correct, the argument is still really weak. All answer choice C does is slightly strengthen the argument by supporting the idea that 'Jim is tall.' Only then does it even make a little bit of sense to conclude that 'Jim can dunk because he's tall.'

PrepTests ·

PT107.S4.Q9

jonathanpalacios646

Friday, Jul 16 2021

This post explains why answer choice B-- oil price remains constant and natural-gas-equipment cost increased-- is incorrect.

What causes people to switch?

We are told that people switch fuel due to the price of the fuel itself. Answer choice B doesn't mention anything about fuel prices, so we have no reason to suspect anything about how/whether people will switch.

Don't confuse equipment cost with fuel price!

The cost of the equipment is irrelevant and does not affect whether or not someone switches fuel. For example, we cannot assume that a high equipment cost makes it less likely that someone switches fuel (this is the incorrect assumption made by the author). We are simply given the premise that, at the time of the switch from oil to natural-gas, people invested in expensive natural-gas-equipment. We are told nothing more.

Important takeaway:

It's really important that we precisely and accurately identify causal relationships (fuel price caused switching; equipment cost did not)