laurenpantoja
- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
Goal score: 168
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027
Discussions
laurenpantoja
Monday, Jul 13
5/5 but at what cost bc i spent 5 min on a level 1 question.. atp am i getting a 165 or a 139...
laurenpantoja
Monday, Jun 29
my sister's hair is blonde (sub premise 1)
blonde hair is beautiful (sub premise 2)
therefore, my sister's hair is beautiful (sub conclusion/major premise 3)
beautiful hair is easy to comb (premise 4)
therefore my sister's hair is easy to comb (main conclusion)
sub premise 1 + sub premise 2 = sub conclusion/major premise 3
major premise 3 + premise 4 = main conclusion
therefore, sub premise 1 + sub premise 2 + major premise 3 + premise 4 = main conclusion
this confused me so i put it into something my brain could comprehend:
All flowers are plants. (A -> B)
Some plants grow strawberries. (B <-s-> C)
Therefore, some flowers grow strawberries. (A <-s-> C)
Think:
What makes you think flowers and strawberry plants overlap in the plant community? Is there proof in a premise that tells us there are strawberry-growing flowers? NO. So the LSAT has no reason to think that and it's invalid. Sometimes it helps to imagine you are arguing with the LSAT prompt. Like "What makes you think that? Where's your proof? No proof? Invalid."
You cannot infer that flowers are in the subset of plants that grow strawberries when there is no premise that provides that information. Your job is to only believe what the premises are telling you.
This argument has flawed logic because it is making an assumption about flowers based off of it's membership in the plant group. You know flowers are plants right? You know some plants grow strawberries? Then why are you assuming flowers grow strawberries just because both are plants!!
In my case, the word "all" in the first premise make it hard to think of flowers as a subset of plants. It helps in this stage to draw it out so your brain genuinely pictures how absurd this flawed logic is. Big circle is plants. Inside Big circle: Little circle #1: flowers and Little circle #2: strawberry growing plants. There is no info in the argument that says the two overlap so why is the conclusion assuming that?