Subscription pricing
Does "tend to" mean a correlation? Like for example if X tends to Y. I thought "tends to" meant causation because I thought it was saying when you have X, you'll have Y which is causation.
PT Questions
kvh5qc297
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
kvh5qc297
Saturday, Oct 08 2022
I could honestly not really see the deeper connection between the two passages, it was freaking hard to read. All I could see was that they both did not like the historical approach and blah, but yeah.
kvh5qc297
Saturday, Sep 17 2022
SA's are usually my best, and even though I know why I got this wrong, I still think this question is poorly written.
I think it's poorly written mainly because if you compare this question to other SA's, it is not as concrete and definitive when it comes to setting its premises/facts.
This was my thinking for this question:
The "ought" part did not sound like a statement of fact that the city council members will ONLY abstain or vote against. It sounded more like the author's opinion on what they should do. And I thought unstated "citizens should not be able to decide on the proposal" was a strongly implied connection because the conclusion is at least one should vote against it(aka /all abstain).
I was between B and D. I didn't pick B because of the
"ought" part in P1 felt like it was leaving possibilities of the council voting for it. And if everyone abstains, it is essentially undecided so it gets left to the citizens. What if the vote turns out to be split with yes/no's with some abstains, then wouldn't the citizens have to decide? How would B guarantee that one should vote against it if your purpose is to not let the citizens vote?
For D, if not everyone abstains(meaning you can vote yes, you can vote no, whatever), it'll guarantee that the citizens will not decide which ties in with what I thought was implied connection above.
But ultimately, I unusually added so much more detail than I usually do for SA. I always stuck to the stimulus for other SA questions but that's because those questions were so much clear and set in determining facts than this one.
And I think I ultimately got this wrong because the "should" is a really important piece that I didn't recognize at first. And "ought" is basically should too. So under the Activist's view, council members SHOULD ONLY abstain or vote against(meaning no yes votes; one or the other). But under their hypothetical world, there is a possibility that they all abstain, and if they do that, then the citizens vote. So the conclusion is that one at least votes against it, and then B would absolutely complete this argument.
If anyone wants to give thoughts lmk #help
kvh5qc297
Tuesday, Sep 13 2022
People have to re-take and stuff this week, so after that.
kvh5qc297
Monday, Sep 05 2022
I'm interested for some tips on perfecting LR and getting better on RC!
kvh5qc297
Monday, Sep 05 2022
So these videos will not be instantly uploaded? I would have to find time to attend them live since I am looking to test in October?
kvh5qc297
Wednesday, Aug 24 2022
@ said:
Hi @, thank you for your question! Former admissions officer here. Is it worth the agony? It depends. The median isn't the top reportable number that law schools have to report to the ABA and US News––the 75th percentile is. For schools like Yale, being above the 75th percentile is going to be a more competitive position than being at/just above median. Hope this helps! -Tajira
Hi, you're an admissions consultant so you definitely know more than me. But I thought only the medians get reported for USNews. (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology) The 25th/75th is mainly used to get a sense of class profiles.
kvh5qc297
Wednesday, Aug 10 2022
For strengthening, do you feel like the same applies? Or do you think strengthening questions use less formulaic stuff like that? And I can't tell if all weaken questions do what you've described, but I feel like you're right on with that. I feel like it's more alternate explanations and I think those tend to be harder. Because I can see analogies, studies, correlation/causation pretty easily.
@ said:
Yeah exactly! So the author's argument centers around a proposal and insinuates that this must be the course of action taken. So when someone offers a proposal, a weakening response would be something like: we have other options, or just because we can doesn't necessary mean we must. > @ said:
This is really good stuff and I only thought about this earlier when I was looking at specific weaken questions that dealt with a survey. I found that the answer choice was something that said the survey wasn't reliable.
Could you further explain the last part about something being imperative (argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions). I can't really pinpoint it. Do you mean like having alternative possibilities for an outcome?
kvh5qc297
Wednesday, Aug 10 2022
This is really good stuff and I only thought about this earlier when I was looking at specific weaken questions that dealt with a survey. I found that the answer choice was something that said the survey wasn't reliable.
Could you further explain the last part about something being imperative (argument that ignores multiple sufficient conditions). I can't really pinpoint it. Do you mean like having alternative possibilities for an outcome?
kvh5qc297
Tuesday, Aug 09 2022
For Q20, I think another reason why D is wrong is because in the last paragraph the author says that they are likely to recover less. But other than that, the author doesn't mention who gets paid more etc.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
I definitely see how C is a plausible answer choice, so I got kinda lucky I was really attached to E and picked it and moved on.
It is dumb though that with C, you can't assume that just because they were encouraged, they did those techniques. But on a different LR section of this same exact test, Q5, you have to make an assumption about a different technique not being emotionally compelling.
I think I picked E because it ties in more with the stimulus and it felt stronger with "most effective". They describe the workers as sitting long hours at desks and the laborers as always doing physical exercise at work. The workers are far more sedentary than the laborers so it can't be the office equipment that results in more injuries.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
I thought this q was weird and the right answer choice was too simple. (despite the rating difficulty, I just had a good read on it). Like, it seems more like equating the premises and not the conclusion.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
B is a pretty good AC in that it eliminates alternate hypotheses but it doesn't help us as much as A to lead to the conclusion that the termites burrowing causes it. E might sound good but I mean we already know there are termites around that area, of course, we'd expect their predators to be there as well.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
I was between D and E, I had no idea what D was saying but I felt like there was a sufficient/necessary confusion going on because the only way you could really say most old houses have more than one apartment is if the first sentence said "All old houses have apartments" but it doesn't say that: it said "All apartments are in old houses" and goes on to conclude "Most old houses have more than one apartment". Like we still don't know how many old houses there are. There could be less than 50% of old houses that holds more than one apartment(which is actually what E is saying).
But, looking back: You have a relative idea of how many old houses there are and that it is 2 times less than apartments. Originally, I was thinking: Okay there could be 10 apartments and 50 old houses on a street. How can you go most? But I completely forgot about that second sentence. If you have 50 old houses, you should have 100 apartments.
I didn't pick E because I thought they didn't really neglect that possibility. They say that most houses have more than one apartment. But yes, it makes sense. I should've thought about this mathematically.
You could have 10 apartments and 5 houses. 2 of the houses have 5 apartments each. The other 3 houses don't have any apartments.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
This is the hardest 1 star question I've ever done lol. I actually had no idea what to pick, but C is the most reasonable answer choice because of that biological aspect and the others just did not make sense.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
B sounded vague to me but also I wasn't 100% sure if the conclusion was saying if ProBit is the more reliable PC brand of all the brands when factoring market share(because it had the least service requests) OR was it a more reliable PC brand than KRV.
If it was the former, I would say B sounds less vague because it definitely leaves the possibility of some other PC brand being more reliable, but the independent service company wouldn't know.
If it was the latter, you definitely would have to make some assumptions, but it leaves another explanation.
This is like the second stimulus I read from this PT where the conclusion is a comparative and it's kinda vague as to what it is comparing(Like X is better than Y or is it saying X is the better brand of all of them).
But I think ultimately B is just saying the data is unreliable which generally weakens any type of argument that hinges on data.
kvh5qc297
Thursday, Aug 04 2022
This is the most unique MC question I've seen from the LSAT. It really leads you to believe they didn't really send enough because of the first contextual sentence. I almost picked B, but a conclusion needs support. There is nothing that supports B. There's more than enough support for C though.
kvh5qc297
Saturday, Jul 30 2022
@ to be more specific, I was doing PT79 S1 Q7. I thought the first sentence was a causation but I don't know the more I look at it, there were other things I'm confused about this question. Like, how do we go from "hindering financial prosperity --> hindering political freedom". Whenever I do Principle/PSAa/PSAr questions, I never have to make leaping assumptions like that. I've seen it a couple times in PT80s and this one.
Like I get how the first sentence says, bringing in more economic prosperity increases political freedom. Could you actually reverse this by saying less economic prosperity into less political freedom?
Or is it because the conclusion is about hindering growth, which in way is like potential growth. If you do something that isn't increasing economic prosperity, you are hindering its potential growth and thereby hindering the growth of political freedom.
kvh5qc297
Saturday, Jul 30 2022
knew I shouldnt have picked A damnit. How were you guys able to tell that in the second sentence of the stim, they were comparing the same program on different computers? I thought they were comparing two different programs on two different computers(which I then I was thinking, this experiment sucks). #help
@ said:
Any instincts on what the curve will be?
gonna guess -8 for the saturday test, at least the one i saw.