Discussions

krissunliu943

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PrepTests ·

PT143.S4.Q19

krissunliu943

Wednesday, Apr 22 2015

To me there's an issue with the conditional statement FQ + AW + MPx -> Hx above

The condition FQ is explained in the video as being met "if all candidates are fully qualified." But Delacruz actually need not be fully qualified (FQ). Say there are 5 fully qualified candidates, and 2 not fully qualified, of which Delacruz is one. All Delacruz needs to be hired, is that the five fully qualified don't currently work for Arvue, and Delacruz happens to the one who would be most productive.

Here's how I went about this question (on BR -- hopefully I'll be able to actually get this under time pressure in time)

(None of FQ working at A) -> Hire most productive

Then, the application says don't hire Krall. As JY says in the video, to reach this conclusion, we have to show that we should hire Delacruz (as we don't actually have a conditional statement telling us when not to hire someone.

So we want to meet the sufficient condition, i.e. none of FQ working at A, and then have Delacruz be the person most productive in the position. That way we can hire Delacruz and not Krall! (E) does just that.

PrepTests ·

PT124.S1.Q6

krissunliu943

Tuesday, Oct 21 2014

Hi JY, I chose (D). I understand your explanation, that JLR -> R, and R -> JLR is the oldest mistake in the book.

But doesn't the fact that JLR -> R make it ever so slightly more likely that Jackie will like C's album, which is rock? This is my reasoning: if C did not play rock music (which we know they do), then there is a 0% chance Jackie will like them. But given this answer choice and the premise that states C does play a type of rock, although we can't conclude that C specifically plays a type of rock that Jill likes, it is a subset within the universe of rock, and now it is marginally more likely that Jill likes C (>0% chance.) Thus this strengthens the conclusion slightly - we have more reason to believe she will probably like C's new album. Something sounds fishy in my reasoning here, and I need help!

Of course there is only one correct answer and I'm not trying to argue (D) is right. I just want to clarify my understanding and completely shatter any misconceptions

General

•

Wednesday, Sep 17 2014

krissunliu943

Blind review specifics

Hi 7sage community,

I've been studying for about three months now, but just enrolled in the course this week, and so also just started using Blind Review (fortunately still have plenty of PT left.) I did my first BR yesterday with a single timed LR section and absolutely loved it. This morning I crushed a PT and it's ready for BR. Let's goooo

My question: the process for BR-ing full length PTs. After completing all 4/5 sections, is it best to BR one section, check answers for that section, finish up the BR for that section, then move on to the next section and repeat? Or do people BR all 5 sections (i.e. go through entire test the first time), before inputting answers in Analytics and scoring? Intuitively I can see the benefit of the former, as the reasoning for each question is still completely fresh in my head, but maybe y'all have figured out the best system for this. Thanks in advance fellow LSAT warriors

PrepTests ·

PT133.S3.Q8

krissunliu943

Thursday, Jun 11 2015

One way to think about why (A) is wrong -- for it to resolve/reconcile, you have to make the assumption that, if we decrease household AC consumption, the other significant drains would probably still overload the region's system, leading to blackouts. But how are we justified in making that assumption? We aren't, especially given we were specifically told that "AC use" is what overloaded the power grid. So (A) by itself does not resolve/reconcile, not without making an unwarranted unassumption :)

PrepTests ·

PT131.S1.Q24

krissunliu943

Wednesday, Oct 08 2014

JY, can you help me shatter my line of reasoning that led me to choose (C)? I'm thinking it is possible that scientists had never observed a supernova in progress in the past. In that case, the current theory could be based on pure speculation/theorizing, instead of empirical evidence. Bringing to light that this is the first time we are empirically observing a supernova - and we have been able to determine that there is not a neutron star - would thus strengthen the author's claim that the current theory is wrong.

I understand from your explanation why (B) is right.