- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
Lol! Yes! That's so funny, 120-180??? IMHO, this is a bad question.
Agree. This is a very untypical question and its logical grain is not consistent with other similar questions. I say this with my experience of completion of nearly 90 PTs.
I highly doubt this question is consistent with the normal LSAT logical rigor in similar Agree/Disagree questions.
The rationale under this NA question just does not make any sense. Why "at least two people would agree on the correct interpretation" necessarily implicates that "it is impossible that a poem has whatever meaning assigned to by any reader"？
It could be 100% possible that there exists two people in this world have exactly the same understanding of a poem！
The rationale just suck！
I did not pick A because I thought the "detection of active volcanoes" and "detection of eruption" could be totally different.
I thought just because we can not detect an eruption, it does not mean that we are not sure whether or not there are active volcanoes.
#help Can we translate the sentence "even two people who dislike each other may treat each other with respect" into a "Some Statement" like this?
Dislike ←s→ Respect
Thanks!
This question completely throws me off. I just don't comprehend what "just as it should be" means. Lol
Hi, can any LR guru help take a look at the two following LR questions?
PT29 1-18 PT2 2-24
Details:
PT29 1-18: Most of artists are less insightfull than those educated.
Correct Must Be True answer E : Some of artists are no less insightgul than those educated
PT2 2-24: Many planning committee members work in suburbs
Wrong Must Be True answer D : Some planning committee members do not work in the suburbs
Basically: PT29 1-18 is saying that "Most excludes All". However, PT2 2-24 is saying that "Some does not exclude All"
Which one shall I remember? I am just sooooooo confused!
Thank you guys!!!
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-18/
I don't think this is a good question formulated by LSAT writers, since "these pesticides" in the last sentence could be fairly and reasonably understood as the specific pesticides manufactured in US.
I really don't like this question. It's like the LSAT writers randomly tossing some wired stuffs which do not make much sense and weave them into a very convoluted conditional logic. I REALLY hate this one.
What shall we do? I was at the last section and suddenly the lawhub lost connection. Have been waiting for an hour and Proctor said it won’t have connection for now and let us contact Lsac.
#help I have a general question regarding the Strengthen Type question. In the curriculum, we are told that there is always a gap. But when I read this question, it does not seem like a "gap type" question as I knew. It looks more like finding an example to support one of the premises (which is double hull might cause further safety issues). Is my thinking wrong? Thank you!
I have the same idea! I believe this is a PSA question or a strengthen question at least rather than Principle questions.
Hi, Galactic! Thank you for you answer! I feel so relieved that I could search the text to attack a Detail Question. Yes I meant to say Ctrl + F.
#help Hi, I just have a general question regarding the digital LSAT when viewing how JY elucidate the Detail Question 13. In the actual LSAT exam, can we use the search function by using Ctrl +S to search specific words in the passage? Thank you for your answer.
Anyone has any idea what category does this question fall in? Most Strongly Supported or Main Conclusion?
I chose A because it is classified as a Most Strongly Supported question in the drill sets and I feel A is more safer an answer than B. J.Y. taught us that MMS answer could be inferred from just part of the arguments or facts in the stimulus. Am I wrong about that? #help
I totally agree with your thoughts and I think this question is really really bad.