Subscription pricing
.
PT Questions
kevinecastillo151
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
kevinecastillo151
Saturday, Jul 15 2017
Bad storm down here caused my power to go out, so couldn't stay the entire time. Thank you for the lesson, it was extremely helpful. :)
kevinecastillo151
Friday, Jul 14 2017
I will definitely be studying tonight! I'm down to join a chat.
kevinecastillo151
Friday, Nov 10 2017
I'd be down to swap! If anyone else wants to swap, send a DM my way :)
kevinecastillo151
Monday, Jul 03 2017
Ah, thank you so much, Sami. Looking forward to it!
kevinecastillo151
Thursday, Aug 03 2017
Step 0- Identify the question stem: we see some keywords like if & is assumed, so right off the bat we know it’s a Sufficient Assumption question. It will be lawgic heavy, so we should be prepared to write out the statements using conditional logic. Remember, for SA questions, we are looking to make our argument airtight.
Step 1 - Read the stimulus
Step 2- Is the stimulus an argument? Yes it is!
Step 3 Identify the conclusion, the premise(s) and the context
Conclusion: 3.1This [freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress] (referential phrasing back to our first sentence) argument for freedom of thought fails. We know this is our conclusion because of the conclusion indicator “Therefore.” Note: Be careful, sometimes LSAT test makers will try to trick us into believing the conclusion is after an indicator, always double check.
This one was tough for me to translate, but let us take it piece by piece. Let us translate to English first; freedom of thought comes before intellectual progress. Do we know that in order to have freedom of thought, we must have intellectual progress? FT -> IP…hmm, maybe, but who knows? What if we need to have other qualifies to trigger intellectual progress? What we know for sure is that, if we have intellectual progress then freedom of thought must be present, since it is a precondition. IP -> FT
A quick example, winning the school district spelling bee is a precondition for winning the national spelling bee. Do we know 100% that in order to win the school district spelling bee we need to have won the national spelling bee? SDSB -> NSB No! What if we also needed to have won the state spelling bee!? BUT! If we won the national spelling bee, then we know 100% that we needed to have won the school district spelling bee. NSB -> SDSB
_
NOT (IP -> FT), we have the not because our conclusion states that this argument fails.
Premise(s): 3.2- It is clear that one must mine the full implications of interrelated ideas to make intellectual progress, and for this, thinkers need intellectual disciple.
Let us translate;
3.2a. Must is group 2, introduces necessary. I will use the notation “FI” to translate
“mine the full implications of interrelated ideas” and place it on the right side of
the arrow. _ -> FI
3.2b. Then we translate “to make intellectual progress” as “IP” and place it on the
left side of the arrow. IP -> _.
Combine them together and we have:
IP -> FI
3.2c. Thinkers need intellectual discipline.
3.2d. I will translate “thinkers need intellectual discipline” as “ID” and chain it up
to our first premise.
IP -> FI -> ID
So far, our complete argument is.
IP -> FI -> ID
( )
_
NOT (IP -> FT)
In terms of basic valid forms we have
A -> B -> C
( )
_
A -> /D
Context: 3.3 - freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress.
3.3a. Please take a look at the previous explanation as to why it is translated to IP -> FT.
Step 4 Evaluate the argument for any assumptions made
So far, our complete argument is.
IP -> FI -> ID
( )
_
NOT (IP -> FT)
We see that our IP is leading and is pushing all the way through. Therefore, we are looking for the missing link between ID and FT. BUT, FT is negated by our conclusion. So, we are looking for the assumption made by the argument which is: ID -> /FT or the contrapositive which is FT -> /ID.
IP -> FI -> ID
(ID -> /FT )
_
IP -> /FT
In terms of basic valid forms we have
A -> B -> C
( C -> /D )
_
A -> /D
Step 5 - Anticipate the answer choice
We are looking for the assumption made by the argument, which is: ID -> /FT or the contrapositive which is FT -> /ID.
Step 6 Scan through the answers and eliminate as many as you can
We can quickly eliminate all the answers that do not mention/contain “intellectual discipline” and “freedom of through” right off the bat. We know the assumption they made and can’t be fooled by any trap answers.
A) We can quickly eliminate this answer choice because it does not contain “intellectual discipline” and “freedom of through.”
B) We can quickly eliminate this answer choice because it does not contain “intellectual discipline” and “freedom of through.”
C) I love this answer, it contains what we’re looking for. Let’s make it a contender and come back to it.
D) Great, our argument says nothing about the discovery of truth. See ya!
E) Oooh, this answer also contains what we’re looking for. Let’s mark it as a contender.
Step 7 - Decide between remaining answers
C) I love this answer, it contains what we’re looking for. Let’s translate and see what we come up with.
FT -> /ID (because lack means it’s not present, we can negate it) and BINGO, this is exactly our contrapositive.
E) Without is group 3, negate sufficient. So, we have /ID -> /FT. Oooh, the old double negation trick, but we are too smart to fall for this trick. Not this time, LSAT writers.
kevinecastillo151
Thursday, Aug 03 2017
I wanted to turn these statements into conditional logic. However, I believe this question can be answered without using conditional logic. Let's start out with translating the first sentence.
It is difficult to grow cacti in a humid climate.
Difficult to grow cacti will be represented as DGC. Humid climate will be represented as HC. Notice that we don't have any conditional indicators. Do we know that if it's difficult to grow cacti that you're in a humid climate? Maybe! But we for sure know that if you're in a humid climate, then it must be difficult to grow cacti.
Therefore, HC -> DGC, or contrapositive /DGC -> /HC.
It is difficult to raise orange trees in a cold climate.
Difficult to raise orange trees will be represented as DROT. Cold climate will be represented as CC. Notice that we don't have any conditional indicators. Do we know that if it's difficult to raise orange trees that you're in a cold climate? Maybe! But we for sure know that if you're in a cold climate, then it must be difficult to raise orange trees.
Therefore, CC -> DROT, or contrapositive /DROT -> /CC.
So in most parts of a certain country, it is either easy to grow cacti, meaning that it's not humid (contrapositive /DGC -> /HC) OR easy to raise orange trees, meaning that it's not a cold climate (contrapositive /DROT -> /CC). Let's chain up our logic.
If it's easy to grow cacti, then it is not difficult to grow cacti, and we are not in a humid climate.
EGC -> /DGC -> /HC
If it's easy to raise orange trees, then it is not difficult to raise orange trees, and we are not in a cold climate.
EROT -> /DROT -> /CC.
Before we jump into the questions, let's try to anticipate the questions. So we know that most parts of a certain country of a certain country, which the definition of "most" is half plus one, so the minimum amount most can represent percentage wise is 51%. Keeping that in mind, we cannot have most parts of the country be both easy to grow cacti AND easy to raise orange trees at the same time, which means that most of our country cannot be humid or it cannot be cold. The majority must be one or the other, not both.
A. This is incorrect, which in our "Must be False" question is the correct answer. Half equals to 50% and knowing that most is equal to 51%, we cannot have our country add up to 101%. It is directly contradicting the inference we made.
B. Since we aren't told anything about the country being hot, it is safe to assume that it could be true. And we are saying that most of our country could be not cold, which could mean hot.
C. Sure, this could be true since we are saying that MOST of our country can be neither cold nor humid. Most includes some, revisit our lesson in "most" and "some" statements if you're unsure.
D. This could be true, most of our country could be not cold, hot. Maybe there could be another reason why it could be not possible to raise cacti e.g. birds eating cacti seeds.
E. This could be true, most of part of our country could be not cold. It could be humid and not cold. Because in order to satisfy an or statement, only one part of the statement has to be true.
Step 0: We read "most similar in its pattern of reasoning," so we know this question is going to be a parallel method of reasoning question. We are trying to find an AC that mirrors our argument.
Step 2: Yes, the stimulus is an argument!
Step 3:
Conclusion- Wealth is not a good thing
Premise- Good things cause no harm at alll
Trigger statement- Wealth is often harmful to people
Let's translate to logic
magic pixie dust
Conclusion- W (wealth) → /GT (good thing, negated)
Premise- GT (good thing) → /H (harm, negated [no=group 3])
Trigger statement- H (keep in mind that we're in the subset of wealth, you could write W with h as a subscript or just make a mental note that we're talking about wealth).
GT→ /H
H
W→/GT
We can see that it is our valid form 2, denying the necessary. Notice that our second premise is doing something to our argument, it is kicking our arrow to point the other way, and negating our statement, think contrapositive).
Step 4: I don't feel that any assumptions were made? It's a pretty standard cookie cutter argument form.
Step 5: I feel that it's a bit difficult to anticipate answers for a method of reasoning question because the array of topics discussed is infinite. I'd say have more of an abstract way of anticipating the answer, think form rather than substance.
Step 6: Piece everything together, so we know we're looking for valid form 2, which is denying the necessary.
A→B
/B
/A
Step 7: Eliminate answer choices. The consensus is that most people can get it down to A&D.
Step 8: Let's take a look at A.
Premise- No one in the chess club loves to golf
Trigger- Alex loves to golf
Conclusion- Alex is not in the chess club
-Translate to logic-
Premise- CC (chess club)→ /LTG (loves to golf, [no=group 3])
Trigger- LTG (keep in mind that we're in the subset of Alex, you could write A with LGT as a subscript or just make a mental note that we're talking about Alex).
Conclusion- A (Alex) → /CC (chess club, negated)
CC→ /LTG
LTG
_
A→ /CC
This matches our cookie cutter, valid form 2! This is our answer.
So why is D wrong? Ah, I'm glad you asked.
First off, we have a most statement in this argument, that should signal a red flag for you. Remember, we are trying to find an almost exact match of our original argument, but we never had a most statement in our original argument. We also have no conditional logic statements, red flag number two. How can we match it to our original argument, if nothing is being triggered? That's right. We cannot match it. The test makers are trying to trick us, and during timed conditions, I got this question wrong. It was not until I went back to analyze the argument that I was able to see exactly why this answer is incorrect.