Subscription pricing
i'm taking a new preptest on Sunday and wonder whether anyone else would be interested in getting together to take it with me. i'd prefer to emulate test conditions (e.g. starting at 8:30AM). let me know!
PT Questions
kennathso447
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
kennathso447
Tuesday, Sep 24 2013
Thanks for your answer, but I disagree with your assessment.
To me, (A) is saying: If your conclusion is true (that crying reduces emotional stress), you are still attributing it to the wrong mechanism. That is, it's not because of shedding tears but due to something else.
We've seen answer choices like this before. For example, in a two speaker scenario where speaker 2 agrees with speaker 1's conclusion, but not for the reasons speaker 1 cites. Speaker 2 is thus still bringing up a flaw that speaker 1 hasn't accounted for. Does that make sense?
kennathso447
Thursday, Sep 19 2013
Thanks for the reply. However, I'm still not seeing how (E) destroys the link between premise and conclusion. It seems like it strengthens the connection. It's saying that these two things (authenticity and competence) aren't in themselves marks of success, and the conclusion of the stimulus is concerned with precisely that - establishing that record sales AREN'T marks of that group's success. Am I missing something?
Also, the problem that I'm still seeing with (B) is that it's talking about "not being successful," which in my mind is different from "not being a mark of success." If anything, if (B) were true, we could make a case that it actually UNDERMINES the conclusion, since, if we know that a group is unsuccessful, wouldn't this information be a mark of success (that is, the lack of it)?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-3-passage-2-questions/
What's wrong with (C)?
"inner turmoil" suggests that the work was concerned with emotion, and Lichtenstein was rebelling against the fading emotional power of abstract art (lines 28-30)
"bold lines/primary colors" suggests that the work utilized pop art techniques, a movement that Lichtenstein was definitely a part of
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/
Really unclear as to why (B) is the correct answer.
The conclusion of the stimulus is about "marks of success."
Answer choice (B) talks about whether a rock group is successful/unsuccessful. This seems to be beside the point as we are discuss METRICS that determine success not about WHETHER something is successful/unsuccessful.
I really liked (E) because it sticks with the conclusion's scope - "marks of success." I know a potential problem with (E) is that it discusses COMPETENCE whereas the stimulus mentions only the group's incompetence. But why can't we interpret competence in (E) as a concept that encompasses both the presence and lack of it?
Question asks us to identity how the argument's REASONING is most vulnerable.
I understand why (E) is a flaw; it's an obvious correlation/causation problem.
However, I don't understand why (A) isn't also a flaw.
Looking at the last two sentences of the stimulus, I see a jump from "shedding tears" to "crying." The author seems to be assuming that shedding tears implies crying, but this need not be the case and (A) brings this up. It's a subtle scope shift, but it's still a shift. Any thoughts?
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-2-question-24/
Hi fellow LSATers!
I'm looking for study buddies for the October 2013 exam, as I'll be studying full time up until the exam.
I'm currently scoring in the 167-170 range, and would like to consistently hit 170+ by October.
Bonus if you're strong(er) in Reading Comp/Logical Reasoning but weak(er) in Games, as I am the opposite and we could complement each other.
Ideally interested in meeting up/Skyping to bounce ideas off of one another, discuss strategy, and see different thought processes to arrive at the credited response.
The "only" is justified in (A) because of the author's extreme conclusion - "Or else NO ONE will engage in original development."
For (C), it doesn't need to be that the costs incurred are INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to the financial benefit. We only need that the costs not OUTWEIGH the benefit. This is not what (C) is saying and therefore is too extreme. Tricky question! Let me know if that helps.