- Joined
- Jul 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@DocRieux thanks so much for your response! My studying journey has definitely not looked like what I thought/ hoped it might, but I've recently started changing up some stuff and seeing some improvement after a period of nothing changing and a lot of frustration. I personally think one of my biggest hinderances is my anxiety; I'm a pretty anxious test-taker (and person just in general, lol) and it's been a struggle to navigate the mental/ emotional load that this test also brings with it. I appreciate your advice and words of encouragement, and I wish you the best with your exam in November!
Amazing work!! Got any advice/ study tips for those of us that are still working towards our goal score?
@skylarrodriguez I was initially also tempted by C. However, if you were to plug this back into the argument, it doesn't actually strengthen the idea that turmeric is what's helping prevent the disease - and this is the idea we need to strengthen. While the stimulus does mention that more turmeric is consumed in India than the rest of the world, C just gives us an independent fact that would need more explaining itself.
C is singling out a group of people - the ones that are the most prone to developing the disease. Let's say this group of people are the people who are aged between 80-90 years old. What C is telling us is that there are less of these people than you might find anywhere else in the world. It's unclear how this is relevant to the stimulus - are there less of those people because people just don't live that long? That would suggest an alternative cause; there's less of these people being affected not because they eat turmeric, but because they just don't live that long. Or is it because this group of people have some special genetics that make them immune to the disease? Honestly, a lot of different explanations could be offered for this phenomenon - but that's not the phenomenon we are trying to strengthen. We are trying to strengthen the claim that turmeric is likely what helps prevent the disease. C makes us go into a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with this idea. The last thing I'll say about C is that we also have no idea what these proportions look like for either India or anywhere else we might compare it to for it to have any kind of meaning.
On the other hand, E strengthens the author's claim because it affirms the correlation being observed in a different context. Now, we're not just looking at India as a whole. E suggests a "zoomed in" picture: in the parts where the HIGHEST rates of consumption occur, what else do we see? Lowest incidences of the disease. This is consistent with what we would expect to see in a situation where we are trying to establish that correlation proves causation - where there is more of the cause, is there more of the effect? This idea is what E is playing on and why it strengthens the argument.
@shreyavpatel1@gmail.com little late here but maybe my comment can be of help to someone else. I'm not sure where you are getting that the author only cares about the radioactive side effects from the experiments, but the question stem is essentially asking that, if we were to replace that part where the author refers to "relevant evidence," which one of the following would work best. In both P1 and P4, the author makes the overarching point that scientific discoveries aren't always a straight shot result from the data that is collected; he uses the discovery of nuclear fission as an example to make this point - the data showed all along that this was possible, but the physicists didn't immediately see that and come to the conclusion that was in fact what was happening.
Like JY says in the video, the relevant evidence being present "for some time" is key to figuring out what the author is referring to. In P1, the author says "between 1934, when a group of Italian physicists including EF first bombarded uranium with neutrons, and 1939, when exiled Austrian physicist LM provided the crucial theoretical connection, scientists compiled increasing evidence that nuclear fission had been achieved, without, however, recognizing what they were witnessing." The author is essentially "tying" this last paragraph back to the first one to emphasize his point - scientific discoveries aren't always a straight shot result, even when the data is already showing it.
@wgresh the stimulus doesn't explicitly state that large frogs can live in wet areas, but we can support that idea based on these premises:
P1: adult frogs are vulnerable to dehydration because of their highly permeable skins (notice there is no distinction here between large adult frogs and small adult frogs. We can infer that this trait of having highly permeable skins is shared between the two)
P2: unlike large adult frogs, small adult frogs have such a low ratio of body weight to skin surface area that they cannot survive in arid climates. (so we know small frogs have a low ratio, and this is unlike what is true of large adult frogs - they don't have this low ratio issue that prevents them from living in arid climates like it does for small frogs).
And finally, P3: The animals moisture requirements constitute the most important factor determining where frogs can live in the Yucatan peninsula, which has an arid climate in the north and a wet climate in the south. (This ties back to what was mentioned in P1, about the common trait of adult frogs having highly permeable skins. Knowing that both large and small adult frogs have highly permeable skins, and based on what we know from the stimulus about small adult frogs being unable to survive in arid climates, we can support the idea that large adult frogs can probably survive the arid climate AND they probably also can survive in the wet climate).
Hopefully this helps!
I’m in a pretty similar situation, so following along. For me, causal reasoning - particularly strengthen and weaken questions - has been a high priority area, and for RC I am also repeatedly missing implied/ inference questions. For flaw questions, the best advice I can offer is to spend time getting familiar with all the common flaws and doing your best to always predict/ prephrase before going into the AC’s. The AC’s are not your friend on flaw questions and will cost you points if you don’t have a prediction going in. Hoping someone can offer any advice on how to switch things up to get over this plateau.
This is awesome! Any advice for someone trying to break out of 150s jail? :,)
very late reply, but I hope this helps someone else reading - while it's not explicitly stated, it's not a huge leap to make given P3: "In addition to reviving the tintype process... nineteenth-century recipes in order to coax new expressive effects from old photographic techniques." P2 and P1 are both examples of artists that are using old techniques during more recent times, so we can safely assume either one of these artists (Jayne Hinds Bidaut or Dan Estabrook) is a late twentieth century artist.
Hi! Your post definitely stood out to me as a first-generation graduate and professional myself, though it looks like it came across my feed a little later than your original posting date - if you are still available and offering tutoring services, I would be very interested!!
@jbucholz I personally would not use this as a general rule of thumb, as I've seen several questions while drilling where suff/ nec confusion is listed as an option, yet has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
@Nick-MagicLampLSAT Strongly echoing #2 here, especially as someone who went through the Core Curriculum first and then incorporated actual drills, PT's, etc. I personally keep a WAJ so I know what kinds of questions trip me up, but sometimes that doesn't exactly translate to knowing where in the lesson library I need to go back to for review of a foundational concept. This would be extremely helpful as refreshers, especially for weaknesses!
I would love to connect if you have margin! I'm aiming for August 2026, but not necessarily in a rush.
I think there is a bug when you click "show analysis." of the stimulus, there is no clear conclusion highlighted in green..
Hi! I recently completed the CC and have been struggling to come up with a solid studying plan/ schedule. I have a variable schedule, but am trying to be consistent with studying - some days, I can do 1-2 hours, and others I can do up to 3 or 4 hours. I took a PT for the first time about 2 weeks ago and got a 146, which I’m not thrilled about but working on improving. I’m aiming to take the test in either June or August. I’ve been using the 7sage study plan feature, working on drills in areas of weakness, watching live classes on topics I find confusing, but I struggle with knowing if I’m truly making the most efficient use of my study time… I haven’t just yet started working on timed practices or drills, so I know that will eventually be another factor to account for. Any advice on setting a structured study plan or finding a routine that feels like you’re making progress?
@boatengad112 I did this too - reading the above comment helped clarify a little though. I also don't think we need to be too worried about doing this since the video mentions this exercise is hard to do with sentences not in the context of an argument. I don't think I would've kicked "whose economies rely predominantly on trade" if the conclusion of the overall argument ended up being something that wasn't a Kingdom of Westeros whose economy relied solely on trade.
@MyaPapaya the subject of the first statement is "pet adoption centers." What about pet adoption centers? They need to have an interactive website AND to be a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to be eligible for the grant. You could technically take "pet adoption center" out of that and just make your lawgic statements like this:
interactive website + 501(c)(3) non profit -> eligible for the grant
For #2, on the explanation portion I can understand how the first sentence "One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species." is just the statement of a fact. At first though, I thought it could be a premise that was supported by the rest that followed. Anyone have any tips on how to distinguish that this isn't an argument?
@alexfbaird because that's not the point of the whole passage. The passage isn't just talking about migration movements generally; it's focused around a specific migration movement, then moves to general principles to support its hypothesis regarding the same specific migration movement. We can't assume it applies to ALL migration movements just because these are general principles; the context of the specific movement here is important.