User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT109.S4.Q24
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, Jun 17 2018

D: Wrong. Spending $600m on new project to create new jobs would dismiss workers. Which means some workers are fired while some new jobs are created. If that's the case how do we know whether there would be a net increase in spending? Are more jobs created than lost? Are new jobs better paid than the jobs lost? So many details are left out for assumption.

0

Hi 7Sagers,

I am looking for some advice on how to plan things out for this year.

I started 7Sage CC in 2017 May and took September LSAT, cancelled the score,

and then got 160 on December LSAT.

Leading up to December test I have been scoring inconsistently between the range 163~168 on PTs

and I have used up almost all of the available PTs at this point.

I had set my goal as 168+ and I am not sure with my December score if I will

get what I want in February with just over a month left.

I know I can take the LSAT as many times as I want, so a part of me tells me to sit for

as many exams as possible to train myself;

but another part of me knows that all scores will be reported when I apply and I want to be prudent with the records I make..

I guess I am afraid that my score might go even further down and I will completely lose faith in myself.

I think the test day anxiety and pressure really affected me and I am not feeling so confident about this test right now.

I have been working on PS and some other essays but it seems like delaying a cycle is inevitable.

Even if I apply this cycle and tell schools I am sitting for February exam, I feel like the 160 from December really limits where I can apply (and I cannot reasonably expect myself to all of sudden score 10 pts higher in a month time).

What do you guys think?

Getting as many test experience under my belt (go for Feb) vs. being careful to only take tests when I feel very ready for my target score (wait till June)?

Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts!

0
PrepTests ·
PT119.S4.Q17
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, Jun 04 2017

(D) was very attractive but now that I take time to read it, it actually is in line with the stimulus.

It says magnesium supplement makes the medicine less effective to treat the illnesses, implying that magnesium is bad for your illness treatment.

If this is true, then ppl who drink soft water are supposedly at advantage compared to ppl who drink hard water in terms of treating their illnesses because their magnesium intake is lower, so their medicine will be more effective.

Therefore (D) does nothing to weaken the stimulus.

0
PrepTests ·
PT119.S4.Q15
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, Jun 04 2017

I am convinced why (D) is correct, but as stephgmeister commented below, (B) sounded pretty good to me too.

If (1) Arthur thinks that Marta wants to dismiss the proposal for walking trails and given that (2) Marta suggested there may be more productive ways to use the land, couldn't we make the inference that Arthur believes Marta favors something other than walking trails ?

7
PrepTests ·
PT121.S4.Q23
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, May 28 2017

I am still unconvinced how (E) weakens the argument in the stimulus.

It says "Most managers who are already efficient never attended a TM seminar." So what?

We don't care how these managers came to be efficient. We just know that efficient ones happen to be good at TM, so we want to teach all managers how to TM better.

If the already efficient managers are good at TM by nature, that's fine, that does not mean our reasoning to have TM seminars are weakened. Then we'll just nurture/train the less efficient ones to be better at TM through the seminar.

For the reasoning above, I still feel that (E) does not weaken, but is irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus. Will anybody help clarify why (E) weakens?

5
PrepTests ·
PT121.S4.Q6
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, May 28 2017

for answer choice C, not only is the "highly skilled" part problematic, but also it cannot be determined from the stimulus that the more skilled workers have advantage over less skilled workers for sure.

The stimulus just says employers are looking for technology that will let them replace skilled workers for less number of less skilled workers. It never says the skilled work force has been replaced already.

5
PrepTests ·
PT106.S3.Q8
User Avatar
jooheekim012022
Sunday, Apr 16 2017

In the first sentence, if someone is "questioning the prudence of exploiting features of the environment," doesn't that mean that someone is more or less supportive of exploiting the environment? If you doubt (question) that one should be cautious (prudence) about exploiting the environment, then you must think one should just go ahead and exploit?

Although this part of the passage is not relevant to the correct AC, I was confused bc JY explained the first sentence as indicating the environmentalists who want to preserve the environment.

Can someone clarify why I am understanding the first sentence wrong?

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?