- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
đź“ŤNYC
Extremely Passionate about: tenants+homeless people’s advocacy, undocumented people’s advocacy, and other social justice issues.
Message me if you’re passionate about these topics and want to take ACTION.
Admissions profile
Discussions
Hey y’all, anyone know off rip the similarities in terms of LR Question types in PT 151 and PT 157? (Trying to figure out if these PTs had more of a certain Q type or na)
Yall think mindset is key to comprehending and thus answering correctly? For Both LR and RC
How to not fall alseep (I read the most boring —to me, sorry old photography lovers— passage about old photo techniques PT 139??) when a passage isn’t something I’m interested in and the passage is dense and or jargony?
Thank Youuuuu
@DaisukeKaga thank you for your post! Your post is a great reminder that even though necessary questions are grouped with strengthen+weaken, a necessary assumption covers(not makes conclusion more likely to be true) a logic hole created by an assumption made in the argument.
@haena Hey, Nice to see you again! :) appreciate your post, very helpful especially the analogous argument 🙌🏼🔥
Hey y’all!
For necessary assumption questions with answer choices that strengthen, when I apply the negation test, would weaken the argument.
How can I tell the difference between an AC that strengthens vs a necessary AC on a necessary assumption question then if the negation test both yields answer choices that weaken?
As I typed this, I realized the answer to my question, can someone confirm please if I’m thinking about this correctly: would an incorrect AC weaken only slightly vs the correct AC completely wreak the argument?
These questions are coming to my mind as I review PT 145 Sect 4 Q 26.
AC A strengthens the argument
AC E also arguably strengthens the argument
AC A negated would be at least one creature that wrecks havoc will be put in the tank, and from the stim, we know creatures that are in the tanks invariably will be deposited when cargo is unloaded at the coasts. Therefore, some environmental havoc is likely at the coast.
If I personalize the argument though, the author could say, “my solution is still better than the current method because there will still be a reduction in environmental havoc wrecked”
E negated though would mean the proposed solution isn’t even viable at all.
Please someone lmk if this way of thinking is how I eliminate strengtheners on necessary assumption questions.
Trying to determine if the reasoning in the stimulus is valid, but in order to finalize my determination, I have a question:
After diagramming the stimulus, the contrapositives of the two premises — can they be combined into one conditional to yield a conditional that matches the conclusion?
If I can combine these contrapositives of the premises, would that conditional match the conclusion conditional?
Once I can determine the reasoning of the argument, I match to the correct AC
@new_cheese very helpful, thank you! You are right, I did chose B at first then chose D during blind review. Reviewing this question deeply helped :)
@MichaelWright Hi! I learned getting a some inference from two all statements combined is valid. according to the source you provided, two most statements combined can also yield a some inference… to confirm, all+all and most+most yields some, which is valid? TY
Hey yall,
Since my ask a tutor button isn’t working, I thought I’d ask for help here. For this question, I thought the unstated premise was: tragedies and comedies major characters have moral qualities that do not reflect the worlds they are in (the logical negation of the classification of romance and satires, which is the moral qualities of major characters do reflect the worlds they are in) . But the correct answer choice, D states the moral qualities of major characters in tragedy’s and comedy’s do not change throughout the action ( the negation of the classification for tragedies and comedies)
Why is the unstated premise here AC D, the negation of the classification for tragedies and comedies rather than the unstated premise I had predicted?
I know this is a SA q btw, I’m trying to push myself to find the gap by thinking what the unstated premises are
@PrateekDevulpally thank you, very helpful! I have a reminder to do to do lists or write things down like you said while at work to get paid to do it, but I usually ignore it. I will stop ignoring it because I can’t keep hurting myself like this.
for my peeps who work full time besides studying and who work in something they are passionate about, any tips on how to turn off your thoughts, worries and concerns from the work day? I still think about my clients and what to do the next day and I find my studying quality to suffer. ill take any tips to improve focus and staying on track, thank you!
also tips on how to make the lsat something one is excited or enjoys doing would be really appreciated! ive heard from high scorers they begin to love the lsat, and I am a firm believer of mentality and focus while testing being huge in accuracy.
Am I wrong or A does have a flaw(mistaken negation) it’s simply not the same flaw as the stimulus?
@PhoebeHopp got it thank you Phoebe! Similar to LR, some ACs might be too Strong to be supported etc
Noticed I have been getting Author’s Perspective-Implied questions wrong the most . Any tips on how to get better at these RC Qs?
@Kevin_Lin very helpful, thank you! I’ll start using the if not trick, it’s much more straightforward
Hey yall I’m trying make sure I’m understanding how to diagram when these words Unless/Except/Until/Without come up in conditional sentences.
“Unless your GPA stays at 3.5+, you don’t keep the scholarship”
I have learned to cancel out the unless and don’t as two negatives and get:
If gpa stays at 3.5+, then you keep scholarship ….
But I did the 7sage lsats game and it’s telling me I got this conditional wrong….
My theory is I’m missing a step here of then making what follows the unless the necessary condition so:
First cancel don’t and unless
Then make what follows the unless the necessary so I’d get:
If you keep scholarship then gpa stays at 3.5+
Is what is above the correct way to diagram the original statement in quotations? Thank you
@lagata just realized explanation for AC C is below the explanation for ac B and if someone isn’t paying attention, it can confuse them
FYI 7sage answer choice C doesn’t have an explanation (just putting it on the radar not pressed)
Through POE I got this question right but can someone explain why AC C weakens…just because insiders think the play is unexciting doesn’t mean the audiences will agree with the insiders… why is this a reasonable jump or assumption according to the lsat?
I understand AC D was the better /correct AC bc we don’t know enough information about Ziegler’s other works to determine whether or not this play will be a success… for example if we knew that his other works werent successful then maybe it would weaken but because we simply don’t know enough about his other works than this answer choice has no effect on the argument.
Still though answer choice C, why is it reasonable to assume or make that jump I stated above?
@MarcusTsang Hey Marcus, hope you’re doing good/nice to see you again! :) ✌🏼 Yes, very helpful your post, esp. since this question has really drilled into my mind that the correct AC on a NA negated isn’t simply weakening the argument, the curriculum wasn’t overstating when they said the correct AC would DESTROY the argument.