Discussions

User Avatar
leechrissal192
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
LSAT · Is doing a ton of RC passages the best way to improve
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Oct 26 2021

No! You should definitely be carefully reviewing what it is you're missing instead. Start with paraphrasing and making what you're reading into your own (part of this is years of study habits but it's never too late to start). Even as an English major, LSAT's RC can trip you up because there are certain words that you'll se are key, like concession points, conditional words, etc. Don't just blindly do a bunch of RCs. Start by doing what JY does in the RC videos.

1
LSAT · ⚖ Official October 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Oct 12 2021

I also had a weird share screen moment at the beginning (the button just didn't show up for a couple of minutes) and my proctor took his sweet sweet time showing up and checking me in (entire thing took 25 mins until I actually began). There was a brief moment when the LSAT told me my internet connection was unstable, which I'm pretty sure is just straight up false, but that didn't bother me. I did have a terrible and legit traumatic experience in the August LSAT, though, so the bar is pretty low.

Other than these things, no tech issues at all! I felt like my test this time went much better than August's. ProctorU sucks in general and I feel like they definitely don't pay or train their proctors enough, but compared to my last experience in August, this time was much better. I don't know if my LSAC survey after my August LSAT complaining about my proctor fiascos did anything, but if it did, I'm glad. I'm just happy to be done with the LSAT.

1
LSAT · ⚖ Official October 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Sunday, Oct 10 2021

wait you’re not allowed to talk about the topics for this exam??

0
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Monday, Aug 23 2021

@forthewinwin707 said:

@sdahal846 said:

Does anyone know when Powerscore will release their predictions on this test?

They have: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3Bvd2Vyc2NvcmVsc2F0cG9kY2FzdC5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Bvd2Vyc2NvcmVsc2F0cG9kY2FzdA/episode/YjM2YzQyYzAtYjEwYy00MmQ2LWExZTYtMTY5ZmNmZTkwYmU2?hl=en-CA&ved=2ahUKEwiimsrR57_yAhWOIDQIHarQC-gQjrkEegQIBhAF&ep=6

FYI on the forum, Jon said that he thinks the scoring scale is going to be something like Sept 2018 or Dec 2017 (-11 or -12 for 170).

0
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

I had the Norway Sweden question and I only had 1 LR…

3
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

There are lots of test forms in use. It’s not surprising. The same thing happened with weekend-to-Monday test-takers.

1
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

RC RC LG LR

i thought LR was hard but half of my mind was also on my poor guinea pig who’s currently in the ER possibly has meningitis

one of the RC i had national Nigerian language, something i forget, sentence reduction, Krauss

the other RC i had cowbirds (DNR the rest); thought both sections were probably around the same difficulty, kind of like PT89’s RC.

LG was standard if not easier; last game took a bit of time but i finished. It was about fashion designers and stores.

LR was rough for me as the last section. There was a question about Sisyphus and an Athenian with a name starting with C that I couldnt figure out. I thought the middle of the section was harder than the very end. In general kind of like a mix of PT89 but with more typical question types on steroids. Again I’m probably biased because I was worried about my guinea pig half the time I was doing the section and my proctor stopped me out of no where because her video wouldnt load. One of the proctors I had was great, the others all awful.

1
PrepTests ·
PT158.S4.Q22
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Aug 17 2021

you strayed off course a little bit, but however you get to the right answer! the accuracy of belief doesn't matter. if it did, well, then contradiction does matter; two things can't both be right if they're opposites. the question is simply what way can help count something in/out of this set called medieval epistemology. If the way works (can define medieval epistemology), then it works (then the argument would be valid). If it doesn't, then obviously, not. that's why (D) is irrelevant and (E) is right because (E) questions if the way that the author proposed can actually work.

1
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Sunday, Aug 15 2021

@jacobvayle509 said:

@lukeprice3219358 agreed!! I thought the first LR was so hard but the second one wasn't so bad. For the other posters above who thought the reverse, I'm hoping the order of LR sections was switched for different tests (seems to be the case for double RC versions)

For people with two LR: are you thinking the experimental section was the one with the speed limit/mug incentive and the robot worker/tax incentive Qs?

@jacobvayle509 Which PT did you think the LR was more like? I also think LR section difficulty depends on personal strengths/weaknesses. I for one, thought PT 89 and 88 LRs were relatively easier than other 80s tests, but that was probably because PT89 especially, was heavy on conditional and causal logic, and not so much other random sh*tty arguments that LSAT writers come up with.

1
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

It seems like the one with the Nigerian languages RC is the real RC, from what people have said.

2
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

Gr8, thanks guys! Also, found this:

11
LSAT · ⚖ Official August 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

What did y'all do with scrap papers after the test? Do the proctors ask you to throw them away or something?

1
PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q20
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

hmm, well, it just wouldn't really make sense if it referred to "condition," would it? i think this is basic reading skills/ if you really have trouble, think about if it actually makes sense of the referent was something else.

0
PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q20
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

no very clearly all conditions are mistaken. it's a chain. it took reading skills as a sufficient, and well reasoned-opinion as sufficient, and free choices as sufficient.

0
PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q20
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

JY's explanation of (E) is interesting ... I didn't think (E) was a flaw, actually. I thought (E) was:

- "a condition under which something occurs": condition --> something

- "a condition under which all its prerequisites occur": something --> A & B,

so condition --> something --> A&B

i feel like what JY showed as (E) isn't actually what (E) is saying ...

5
PrepTests ·
PT120.S4.Q26
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

think about it. if the total decreased, and one of the two group's percentage decreased, then the other group's percentage must have increased. And the group with the decreasing percentage must also have decreasing number.

before: total = 150, non-NA is 80% = 120 people, NA is 20% = 30 people

now: total = 100, non-NA is 79% = 79 people, NA is 21 % = 21 people

0
PrepTests ·
PT120.S4.Q26
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Saturday, Aug 14 2021

it just introduces doubt to author's original interpretation

0
PrepTests ·
PT127.S2.Q14
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Friday, Aug 13 2021

edit: actually saw @nds0118989's comment below, and I think it helps resolve my question! I'm pretty sure you have to take this stimulus to mean that the conclusion is generalizing broadly and trying to fit E & BM into the overconfident group.

0
PrepTests ·
PT127.S2.Q14
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Friday, Aug 13 2021

This question is super tricky, imo, because it's not immediately clear if the conclusion is talking about in general, or comparing between the two groups. It's hard to interpret the conclusion. The only way (D) makes sense to me is if the conclusion is talking about people who are confident/not in general. At first, I thought the flaw was they overgeneralized being overconfident in answering the questions vs. being overconfident in general, so (E) seemed attractive. But (E) still isn't what we want. I think the assumption you'd have to make for (E) is that confidence in business acumen affects likelihood of starting a business, which seems reasonable at first, but I guess not? The last half of (E) has to say something about likelihood of starting business.

Whereas, if you understood the conclusion as saying people in general who are overconfident, and the entrepreneurs and business managers being in this group, then (D) makes more sense. It still doesn't strengthen completely because of course, the conclusion is comparative, and nothing is said about people who are less confident. I think this is where another problem arises--is that you have to understand "less confident" in the conclusion as meaning not overconfident.

I guess another way to make sense of (D), while understanding the conclusion as referring to the business managers when it talks about "people who are less confident," is that the comparison is quite meaningless if business managers didn't attempt to start businesses. I don't know, though, because I think if business managers didn't attempt, then the likelihood is 0, so then of course entrepreneurs' likelihood would be higher.

Dunno what to do with questions like these. I hate it when the LSAT writers are vague. #help.

0
PrepTests ·
PT155.S4.Q24
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Friday, Aug 13 2021

no. it's a PSA. "most helps to justify." 7Sage labels it PSA.

1
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Aug 12 2021

leechrissal192

Sets, supersets, members practice problems?

Does anyone know if there's a filter to look for sets vs. supersets type questions? Or is there a place in the core curriculum that deals with these issues? I'm not talking about just the valid vs. invalid inferences from existential relationships, but more like the more recent PT questions that have stimuli like "most mammal species of ... are not, but most individual mammals are ..."

Does anyone have any advice on how to systematically (with a process) attack these problems? I usually do them based on my intuition, but I find that can just be very nerve-wracking. Sometimes, I draw circles/Venn diagrams, too, but I never quite know what to do with them/it's hard for me to infer anything from them.

0
PrepTests ·
PT155.S3.P3.Q16
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Tuesday, Aug 10 2021

The factual accuracy of (B) in 16 is also in question. The passage doesn't really talk about peptides binding crystals together so much as it binds to semiconductors to help semiconductors crystallize.

In (22), (C) - (E) all weaken, if anything, or is just irrelevant. (A) kind of does, too, but all in all is just irrelevant. Not really sure what to do with it. Ok, so other people has started doing something too, what does that have to do with Belcher & Hu, though? If anything, it's more like competition. But there's not evidence to say if it's competition or collaboration, so you just can't do anything with (A). (B) is a very subtle answer choice in that you just have to think about it in relation to the passage. If there are even more semiconductors that work in the same way and can be substituted, that gives Belcher & Hu's current research even more of a boost than what they have already done.

1
PrepTests ·
PT155.S3.P3.Q16
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Monday, Aug 09 2021

The most important thing that helped me get -0 on this passage's questions is, I think, trying to stay calm and going back to the passage to clarify any part I didn't understand.

Even scary-sounding words aside, what's being talked about is quite complicated. Semiconductors make up transistors which make up small computer chips. Semiconductor crystallizes into transistors. Peptides that B & H grew themselves can help semiconductor crystallize into transistors.

There are definitely lots of details, so I think the best way to tackle this passage is probably to get a big overview of the things you know, latch on to the facts that you know for POE, and then go back to the passage to re-read to understand the details (like "They grew ...," "resembles accelerated evolution," the whole crystal growth thing, etc.) Memory definitely helps with timing here. Because it's such a facts-dense material, and so many things are unfamiliar, the things that are familiar stand out more, in my opinion, and you have to hold onto those.

4
PrepTests ·
PT155.S3.P4.Q23
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Monday, Aug 09 2021

(C) should be crossed out that easily. Nothing in Passage A talks about thinking about the world causing difference in language. There's not even a correlation. You're big-time misreading the last paragraph of Passage A, which is about what language actually does (and this is actually the main point of the passage, too).

1
PrepTests ·
PT155.S2.Q15
User Avatar
leechrissal192
Monday, Aug 09 2021

Also, as a fun note, this video https://twitter.com/bitchitz999/status/1424561966471811075?s=21 of Tyler the Creator reacting to "some people find his lyrics offensive" when the interviewer is trying to say that his lyrics are offensive is the perfect reaction. Kind of similar to (C) in that it's just like, ok ...? i.e., irrelevant unless more is known. (C) is likely taken into account already by the claim, and it just doesn't affect the argument because we don't know what "some" is. The conclusion about "primarily due to" caffeine is just not supported, let alone caffeine in carbonated beverages. (Also note that the evidence and the conclusion are pretty bad too. We know that drinking some popular carbonated bevs makes it so that there's more caffeine out than if you didn't drink them. But the evidence is about just carbonated beverages, and we don't know if the popular ones with the Ca effect are the ones that teenagers are drinking, and the conclusion is about teenagers drinking carbonated bevs in general.

Tyler's example is a bit different, but also a recurring trap. So what if some people believes something? Are those people the right people to ask on this matter, and if so, how many are there (how many is "some")?

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?