@corywonglaw921 said:

D actually has a very specific problem: the word "discharge."

Discharging debt means you don't have to pay it.

Traditional bankruptcy means liquidation and creditors getting back certain % of their investment. The modern law focuses on restructuring, so the company can continue to function as well as have a plan for satisfying obligations.

Here we need to make a "reasonable assumption" - satisfying debt means to completely cover it. Why would the Au agree that restructuring would lead to more debt getting written off, if the whole purpose of the process is to increase the likelihood that the debt is actually paid? We can go as far as to say that D goes against the premises that we were operating under.

With E we have another "reasonable assumption." In modern day economics credit is the lifeline of business. Higher cost of credit increases the financial burden on the business that is taking it. Since liquidation does not involve gaining access to new credit per se, it is reasonable to assume that the added cost does not apply.

I am not a fan of LSAC's "reasonable assumptions" idea at all, but with time and practice your intuition definitely starts picking up on that distinction.

Hey! Thank you for your explanations I'm also struggling with this question. I have a follow up question:

You mentioned that "Why would the Au agree that restructuring would lead to more debt getting written off, if the whole purpose of the process is to increase the likelihood that the debt is actually paid?" Where do you find support that show author's POV as being supporting a particular side/theory? Because, besides the last paragraph where the author is pointing out some weaknesses in Korobkin's approach, I couldn't find anything that definitively show the author's opinion. "We can go as far as to say that D goes against the premises that we were operating under." Could you elaborate a bit more on the premisses that we were operating under?

Thanks in advance!

@leoxnardx653 said:

Hey I think the problem with AC D is that the comparative part. From the passage, I dont think we can comfortably infer that either method of bankruptcy law can lead to discharging more proportion of debts. Yes, as you said, there might be more people getting benefitted in the method the guy Korokin advocates, but at the same time, do we know that it gives back MORE, GREATER PROPORTION of debts? We don't know, we only know that maybe, just maybe, debts are reaching more people, more than just the creditors. Plus, the most fatal mistake might be that we are not sure whether the author agree with this or not. Author does not present an opinion on this comparative issue, instead the author is quite critical to Korokin's method.

E is right for the same reason that you mentioned, but I think it stands pretty good. If the creditors charge more for credits, we can infer that the price for people to borrow money, aka more expensive for people to borrow money and establish business. And we know that the author would agree with this, since the last paragraph was the author's criticism on the Korokin's method.

Hope this helps.

Hey! Thank you for your explanations I'm also struggling with this question. I have a follow up questions:

You said "do we know that it gives back MORE, GREATER PROPORTION of debts?" Do you mind elaborate a bit about how'd you get there, because I interpreted D as saying, under re-organization, insolvent companies discharge more % of debt than... so they pay fewer % of debt compared to liquidated companies. Then creditors would receive less % if a company re-organizes.

And that's where I thought D is supported since the author was disagreeing with Korobkin's approach, because he said "a fair accounting of the interests of other affected parties represents an increase in risk to creditors, since they're likely to recover less in the event of bankruptcy."

Thank you in advance!

Hello, if you're like me who can't math and also can't understand the equations other good samaritans put out in the comment section, maybe this splitting apples analogy is for you.

Basically, LSAC wants you to understand this:

Let's say:

(1) I have 200 apples in total.

(2) 50% of them are green apples, so there are in total 100 green apples.

(3) Two people, Sally and Tom, are splitting all of the green apples.

(4) They can split all the green apples like this

100 green apples (50% out of all the apples) → Sally (10) 10% + Tom (90) 90%

or

100 green apples (50% out of all the apples) → Sally (90) 90% + Tom (10) 10%

(5) LSAC is trying to show you:

whoever is getting that 10% (or a % that's smaller than 50%), the other person must get the 90% (or a % that's higher than 50%). That's what JY is talking about where he said "...to pull it up... weighted averages..."

You can try different numbers and you'll be better at visualizing it!

Love me some apples analogy no matter at what age.

Yes your negation is correct, and that's also why when (A) is negated it does destroy the conclusion.

The argument is basically as:

The new mayor is not an introspective person, because his assertions are made with certainty and confidence.

If (A) is negated, it would be as you mentioned: Some introspective people do make assertions with utter certainty and confidence.

As you can see, if (A) is negated, the conclusion doesn't stand anymore. When assessing an assumption's strength, it's relative to its conclusion. If the conclusion is weak, then the assumption can be "weak," but when a conclusion is in the absolute or "strong," then the assumption needs to be "strong" too.

Hope that helps!

Hi, correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually think it's because of the phrase "tends to..." in AC (D). "tends to..." means "most of the time" or "most likely than not" according to Powerscore guys, here is the link if you would like to read more about modifier inference: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=8717

(D) "...tends to be the most sophisticated music." is too much to be supported by the stimulus. I think had (D) not made a generalization that includes the phrase "tends to..." it would be more compatible with the stimulus. I hope it helps!

@ashleytien240 said:

lol. Before I post my questions I always watch his videos first.

But the comparison was between plots that had soil from out of production land, those that did not, and those that were growing on native land. I don’t see anything about land that was out of production recently

Hey I'm still at work and haven't looked at the passage closely, but I remember struggling the same exact question with the passage. I think the land that was "out of production recently" was referring to those land they're talking about in the first paragraph, like those in the first or second sentences. The land that they're trying to "restore a natural balance."

@kimmelsara198 said:

@giuliapines511 , same for me. I tried all the things and note taking definitely took the most time and produced the fewest gains. I ALSO had 2 RC sections and finished with extra time, I hope that was a good thing... I actually remember a lot of details even still, so I am going to assume it wasn't bad ;)

I will say that note taking can be worth trying, untimed, as it is a good exercise in engaging with the material and looking more for structure if you have a hard time seeing it. I ultimately stopped using it as a tool as I was not looking back it nor finding it helpful under timed conditions. I have internalized the practice and synopsize what I've read in my head after each paragraph, and link it to the other paragraphs before moving on.

I do love me some highlighter, it keeps me engaged and helps me track important info without taking up a ton of time. A few additional things I like to highlight: unfamiliar words, author's perspective (can be, and often is, subtle), indicator words like however, thus, although, which all point to shifts in perspective or opinion.

Hi Sara, do you mind elaborate a bit more on your take or what you think that made RC click for you? Especially when it comes to timing. Finishing with extra time on RC is very impressive. I feel as though I am and did "internalized the practice and synopsize what I've read in my head after each paragraph, and link it to the other paragraphs before moving on," but it won't reflect in the questions (Though it does reflect in BR most of the time). Time pressure causes me to mis-read words or interpret phrases loosely or wrongly. Would love to hear your experiences!

Hey there! "Either or but not both" is an indication for biconditional.

So "Either P or Y, but not both" means P (--) Y

Hope this helps!

Hey I also had the same confusion so see if this helps:

I think "that which" is referring to the "art of still photography" in the very first sentence.

I think what's confusing here is the semicolon, because the semicolon makes me want to assume that "that which" is referring to "functioning." But here I think the semicolon is being used to connect related independent clauses, so basically they are two independent sentences and should be interpreted on their own, kinda looks like this:

"...Functioning takes place in time and must be explained in time. Only that which narrates can enable us to understand."

Hey! I can see if I can help since I just took 91! (A) sounds more like a Sufficient Assumption, that's probably why you're inclined to it. (E) is more necessary compared to (A). The premise of the conclusion is "low visibility in question is already completely explained by the general theory of relativity," that's why there is no reason to believe the hypothesis is correct. Not for any other reason, at least in this stimulus. But if you put (A) into the reasoning, then it doesn't have to be the hypothesis is wrong because we already have general theory of relativity, it could be something else, maybe has nothing to do with the general theory of relativity. That's why (E) is more necessary to this argument than (A) is.

I like to think of it this way: We're trying to guard the whole argument of the reasoning, so the premise must follow the conclusion perfectly. So even if the conclusion can be the same for another reason, at least in this stimulus, it must follow from this premise they provided for you!

I didn't like C because of something JY doesn't address: I didn't like the assumption of "success in public art" = "completing the tasks of public art." IMHO there is a gap between and . Usually, completing tasks could be the bare minimum, but meeting criterion of success is obviously indicative of achieving the highest level of something. Even though this is the best answer compared to the other four, I still had trouble choosing it during timed since LSAC usually like to split hair on these details ugh.

Please lmk your interpretations! #help

Literally. I chose to take LSAT exactly because i want to avoid word problems like this.

yeah I think this is the font they use on the actual test :( ig we need to get used to the ugliness

I agree D is the best answer compared to the other 4 answers.

But net employment doesn't need to increase because, for example, landlords still pay taxes and have earnings but they don't necessarily contribute to the "employment" data. Day traders still pay taxes and earn earnings but they don't necessarily contribute to the "employment" data. Employment is not necessary for having earnings if you own capital.

So basically:

The stimulus says: 1yr-olds were born to like candies over chips. But, if you feed them chips every single day for a whole year, by the time they are 2 yr old, they will start to like chips.

JY is saying: well how do you know that? you never had a control group showing one group of 1 yr-olds being fed chips every single day for a yr and another group of 1 yr-olds being fed sour cream every single day for a yr (or something else that's not chips or salty). What if a yr later, the "another group" of 1 yr-olds that were being fed sour cream everyday end up also liking chips starting the age of 2? What if all 2 yr-olds naturally prefer chips/salty foods instantly starting on the day they turn 2?

Answer choice A is ruling out this possibility, saying: no 2-yr-olds would do that.

Wait I see what you're asking now! I was thinking about the same thing during timed! But it looks like that's just one of the factors that we're supposed to take into account when making the inference, hence answer choice D is a better answer

#18: what's the Venn diagram of mammals and species like? are species under mammals? I eliminated E bc I thought it's just "mammalian life"

#help

temperate zone is in between the arctic and tropic zone

???

A still doesn't make sense to me, if you already conceded something how can you also ignore it???

#help (Added by Admin)

.

wow I totally thought this was a strengthening question instead of a MSS question

3rd time doing this question still got tricked by B.

E is what B strives to be.

.