lualee

Joined: Sep 2025
Subscription: Core

Admissions profile

LSAT

Not provided Goal score: 180

CAS GPA

3.67

1L START YEAR

2028

Discussions

LSAT · New LSAT Interface -- No More Highlights in RC?

lualee

Yesterday

@SCOTT_LEBO This was extremely helpful -- thank you so much!!

1

•

yesterday

lualee

🙃 Confused

New LSAT Interface -- No More Highlights in RC?

Hi 7Sage community! I had a quick question about the new LSAT interface that has now been confirmed for adoption starting in August. I realized while practicing with the new interface on 7Sage that in RC, the new interface no longer highlights the portion of the text that the question stem refers to. This is especially confusing and time-consuming when questions ask us to identify multiple sentences (e.g., how does the second sentence of the first paragraph relate to the third and fourth sentences of the third paragraph?). Does anyone know whether the highlight feature will disappear on the official test as well? :/

1

PrepTests ·

PT116.S3.Q4

lualee

4 days ago

@cgmahoney2 I also chose AC B for the same reason after debating between AC B and C. Would really appreciate if anyone could help shed light on this!

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S4.Q9

lualee

5 days ago

Could this be seen as argument by analogy and the correct AC pointing out to a potential difference between Sullivan and his colleagues that the argument overlooked and hence weakens the analogy?

1

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q19

lualee

Sunday, May 24

For AC B, I thought even if we exclude the phrase "while effective," it could still be wrong because Anika actually doesn't say that the plan should not be adopted. She simply says that the prediction is wrong. What if the prediction is wrong and that people would be less willing to buy antiques, but there are other reasons not cited in the stimulus that could make it favorable for the plan to be adopted?

Would this thought process be valid?

1

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q24

lualee

Edited Friday, May 22

Here, I thought the MC is: some psychologists are mistaken, and the last sentence is rather the intermediate conclusion/premise for the MC.

Whenever the argument says that other people "mistakenly believe X," isn't that the conclusion? #help

1

PrepTests ·

PT122.S2.Q12

lualee

Edited Friday, May 22

Would it be correct to think that the argument structure proceeds like this:

Premise 1: It is primarily by raising interest rates that central bankers curb inflation, but an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect inflation.

IC following the premise above/Premise 2: Accordingly, central bankers usually try to raise interest rates before inflation becomes excessive, at which time inflation is not yet readily apparent either.

Premise 3: unless inflation is readily apparent, interest rate hikes generally will be perceived as needlessly restraining a growing economy.

Premise 2 + 3 supports the MC

So basically the argument part we are being asked is a premise that supports the IC, which, along with another premise supports the MC? Hence, the argument part we are being asked rather INDIRECTLY supports the MC?

2

PrepTests ·

PT118.S3.Q23

lualee

Thursday, May 21

Slightly confused with the correct AC D. I get that the statement contributes to the author's argument that consciousness of animals is not a sufficient reason for not eating meat.

However, AC D is saying that the sentence "that eating meat was essential to good health for humans" ITSELF is used to weaken the claim. But doesn't the sentence rather lay the groundwork for weakening the claim, rather than weaken it on its own? That is, we cannot say:

Premise: Let's suppose eating meat is essential to health for humans.

Conclusion: It's not sufficient to say that consciousness of animals establishes a reason for not eating meat.

Idk if this makes sense... #help

1

PrepTests ·

PT115.S3.P2.Q9

lualee

Thursday, May 7

I'm having trouble understanding why the last paragraph is the main point, specifically this part: "The need to deny adult evil has been a pervasive feature of our society, leading us to position children not only as the sole agents of evil but also as the objects of unending moral instruction, hence the idea that a literature targeted for them must stand in the service of pragmatic instrumentality rather than foster an unproductive form of playful pleasure."

Is it subtly inferred that the author's MP is literature for children should be an unproductive form of playful pleasure rather than pragmatic instrumentality because he uses the phrase "rather than"?

#help

1

PrepTests ·

PT130.S4.Q18

lualee

Friday, Apr 10

@beyondsudi482 this was such a great explanation -- thank you

1

PrepTests ·

PT145.S4.Q6

lualee

Edited Tuesday, Apr 7

I chose AC (C) for a different reason -- I thought the editor misinterpreted the word "most" by thinking that it meant "more"... I guess this isn't necessarily a misinterpretation but rather a misreading...? but I think this could be another flaw...

1

PrepTests ·

PT132.S3.P2.Q11

lualee

Edited Wednesday, Feb 11

I'm confused by AC C. I do understand that LHB caused major craters on the moon, as explained in paragraph 1. I also understand that all three viewpoints agree that LHB has ended.

However, I'm having trouble understanding why this would mean that CRATERING decreased after the LHB? What if LHB is NOT THE ONLY CAUSE of cratering? The passage never claims that LHB is the only cause of cratering...? #help

1

PrepTests ·

PT142.S1.Q18

lualee

Edited Monday, Feb 9

@chriselmore111943 I thought the same thing during timed test. But upon reviewing during BR, I realized that the problem with AC E could be the phrase "not associated."

The stim never says that sleeping less than 8 hours is not associated with a greater frequency of illnesses. Rather, it says that those who sleep at least 8 hours a night exhibit a greater frequency compared to those who sleep significantly less. "Not associated" is an absolute term, whereas "greater or lesser frequency" is a relative term, which is why I eliminated AC E.

2

PrepTests ·

PT135.S2.Q13

lualee

Tuesday, Jan 27

I got this correct via process of elimination and understand why AC D is correct. However, I was slightly hesitant to choose AC D because it seems to be establishing an assumption between premises, rather than between a premise and assumption? Is it common for necessary assumption questions to ask about assumptions between premises? #help

1

PrepTests ·

PT135.S1.Q14

lualee

Thursday, Jan 22

I realize that in typical conditional reasoning, having only a necessary condition does not mean that the sufficient condition is present (whereas if the sufficient condition is triggered, the necessary condition must follow). In this case, it seems that the application is the necessary condition (that reasonable expectations of the policyholder should take legal precedence over the specific language of the policy).

I intuitively understand that we have to be within the relevant domain for this application to hold. However, I am a bit confused because this seems to contradict the general principle I’ve been using throughout the LSAT: that a necessary condition does not trigger a sufficient condition. Are these simply two completely different notions? #help

1