@judykang020325 hey how much was it for david busis to review if you don't mind me asking?
Does anybody know when the personal statement program will start?
Just saw the discussion thread for that and I wish I had submitted an essay to him while he was offering to revise them for free :(. But it still sounds like something I want to be a part of! Maybe I missed another discussion about when this program will be ready to start? Does anybody know? Thanks in advance!! :)
Honestly, I'm having the same issue with this question. The question is pretty much playing on the necessary/sufficient confusion, but the phrase "most likely" seems to implicitly accept the idea of (D). I don't believe it overlooks it. Isn't the whole concept of necessary/sufficient confusion dependant on the relationship being absolute?
To put as simply as possible, let's say:
[premise] A->B
----
[conclusion] /a -most-> /b
I don't believe the conclusion excludes the idea that the b may not have other possible causes. "Most" only means 50-100 so it IS possible that in the world of /a-most->/b that, perhaps, C ->b.
Can someone please explain what I'm getting wrong here?
"After all" should also indicate that the sentence immediately preceding it is the conclusion.
The conclusion is saying that the risk is "likely" to increase. The conclusion isn't absolute. Does that help?
For parallel questions, would it be okay to eliminate an answer choice based on whether it is or isn't subjective/descriptive? Like this stimulus is just descriptive, so is it correct to eliminate D and E based on its subjective conclusion?
I think (C) is also wrong because the focus of the passage is not on the "production" of the perfumes, rather the value ascribed to it by professionals?
@allisonmcmahon10493 M wow! A 175 on your first PT after learning the basics is awesome! Also, sadly, not very relatable. lol
Scoring in that range, it seems like your RC and LR scores were pretty spectacular to begin with. But in your opinion, how did you improve your RC skills?
Wow. This is great Allison :)
If you don't mind me asking, how did you study for the test? What was your weakest section and how did you overcome that? Did you retake or do well the first time around?
Is (E) is incorrect because it is referring to the two sufficient conditions as exclusive when in it should be considered as inclusive?
PI or 500+ -> RA
contrapositive:
/RA -> /PI AND /500+
So if it instead read as "No one was injured in the accident AND the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500" it would be correct?
So would (C) be right if it said "Satisfaction with income is strongly correlated with THEIR neighborhood?"
Good luck everyone! May the LSAT gods be ever in your favor
Man. I was stuck on this question forever. Just did this RC section again today and finally realized why (A) is wrong and why (D) is most strongly supported. For this question, it is very very important that you look CLOSELY at the question stem. The question stem is asking what did the author, Kogawa, believes regarding the majority culture.
(A) is incorrect because it refers to what the novel's character, Naomi, experiences in the novel.
(D) is correct because, while its not the perfect match and I still cannot explain why this answer choice refers to "religious ethics," it refers to Kogawa's critique of the majority culture - not Naomi's. This is definitely supported by lines 8-20 "...Kogawa employs...to critique the majority culture."
I'm pretty sure (E) is incorrect because the passage never mentions "exert[ing] economic power." This AC would have been correct if it instead said "...mistaken except in its claim that advertisers may not yield the exact emotional fulfillment as ostensibly promised.."
This question fools me every time. The argument and the ACs leading to (D) sets up the perfect trap to pass by this answer choice without REALLY considering its relevance to the argument. As much as I despise this question, I have to admit that it leaves me in awe of the LSAT writers...
Looking back at this question, I can see why D is right while A is incorrect.
If you strip the argument down to its bare core of premise and conclusion, then the TCR becomes obvious.
James' conclusion is not explicitly mentioned but can be understood as stating/arguing that the voting public can evaluate complex campaign issues.
P: Reade discusses complex issues + he is more popular than the others
C: voting public can evaluate complex campaign issues
I believe when the argument is written out like this the flaw becomes pretty apparent. Does being more popular necessarily mean the population can evaluate complex campaign issues? This premise barely, if at all, supports his conclusion.
So Maria calls James out on his poor/weak argument. And like most lsat arguments, she first concedes James' premise then goes on to show how it does not lead to his conclusion.
P: yes he is more popular + but he could just seem more competent and trustworthy
C: thus, just being more popular does not mean the the public can evaluate the issues. Instead, his popularity can be due to other reasons.
Essentially, they are arguing for or against the idea that being more popular means ( ->) the voting public are able to evaluate the complex issues. As such, (A) is pretty much irrelevant to the arguments at hand. Who cares about what others do? The argument revolves around whether popularity is indicative of publics ability to evaluate.
wow. My mind drew a blank for this question. I don't know why but I ended up translating "not" as negate necessary. Not sure where this lawgic translation came from...
I ended up eliminating (B) because of the phrase "approve their own character." Does the phrase "one's sense of approval of one's character and projects" mean their approval of themselves? I read it to mean "one's sense of approval that they feel they get from other people regarding their character and projects"... :(
OH wow. I reread this about 3 more times, on different days. Now I get it.
Where can I find the answers to the test?? I can't find it :(