Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided

CAS GPA

Not provided

1L START YEAR

Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·

PT115.S4.Q19

lauragoode444

Wednesday, Apr 12 2017

JY has me laughing over here. I love some of his explanations...'some people just don't give a shit.' He lightens the mood of learning this monotony. I needed that chuckle. :)

PrepTests ·

PT129.S3.Q7

lauragoode444

Wednesday, Mar 29 2017

Ok, I need some clarification. The first time around I chose E on this question, then after I got it wrong (and thought I had it right), I reworked the question, at which point I chose A! This was proof that I REALLY did not understand the question. I chose A because I assumed there would be a spike and then the plankton would die off because of lack of resources explaining the eventual decline. I now see the error of my ways on this question. However, my original choice, E, is still a mystery to me. This was my first choice AND it still seems plausible. The video (and others) say that we should be thinking that viruses are good in this case and that helps us arrive at the correct answer. However, it seems to me that there could be another mode of thinking to arrive at the correct answer? I would never automatically think (especially under time restraints) to look for an answer that explains why the virus was good, that is counter to my understanding of the world. Therefore, if I don't see this question in another light, I am bound to make the same mistake again. Specifically, is there any problem with the language in E? It says that 'at any given time plankton are already infected', using present tense (as opposed to 'at any given time the plankton WERE already infected') when the stimulus clearly says the virus was removed in past tense. I almost chose another answer precisely because the time element felt off to me - the present tense did not feel right on this answer for the reason I stated above. Can somebody please shed some additional light on why E is wrong??

PrepTests ·

PT126.S3.Q8

lauragoode444

Wednesday, Mar 29 2017

Yes, thank you.

LSAT

•

Tuesday, Mar 28 2017

lauragoode444

PT57.S3.Q15 - medical ethicist: assuming there is

I do not understand why, "'it is never acceptable to offer experimental treatments to patients who experience no extreme symptoms of the the relevant disease" is translated as no extreme symptoms (NES) -----> not acceptable to offer exp. treatment (/AOET).

If we negate the necessary - wouldn't that be 'it is sometimes acceptable to offer ex. trmt'. I do not grasp how just repeating what the sentence says is negating the necessary in this case? I'm having trouble in general with these 'not, never, double-negative type statements, and invariably getting them wrong. please help.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-15/

PrepTests ·

PT126.S3.Q8

lauragoode444

Friday, Mar 24 2017

I decided against E because the stimulus says most take the offer, and a few want. Wanting and actually taking are different. So, I chose C because it seemed better than E. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

PrepTests ·

PT126.S3.Q17

lauragoode444

Friday, Mar 24 2017

Answer choice A threw me off because of the word 'clearly'. The stimulus doesn't say that 'to indicate otherwise' is clearly. That's a jump. What if the moron sellers put a note in one of the drawers. They would have indicated, but not clearly. Every other answer did not look good to me either so I spent too much time and still got this wrong - all because of the stupid word 'clearly'. Can someone help explain why the answer is not wrong because of the word clearly. To me, 'clearly indicating' and 'indicating' could indeed be different.