Right but perhaps the fines were raised 6 months ago and the parking garage "just opened" now, as in 6 months later. Is this not also a possible reading of the stim?
How can the new parking garage have been the cause of the reduction in fines? It says the fines were implemented 6 months ago to help pay for the garage that "had just opened" Was the garage already built 6 months ago? I interpreted it that the garage came AFTER the fines were implemented since you need the money to build it. #help
@jlong16488 So weird. I called LSAC and they said that unless you went to multiple schools or transferred, your "Degree (Summary) GPA" and "Cumulative GPA" should be exactly the same.
My undergrad GPA on my transcript is listed as a 3.8 but both my "Cumulative GPA" and my "Degree (Summary) GPA" is listed as a 3.4. I know that 3.4 is my LSAC GPA since I retook a couple of courses, but I thought my "Degree (Summary) GPA" should be a 3.8
Sigh I don't know who's right, LSAC has been known to give inaccurate information before. Are your GPA's different and did you happen to attend multiple schools? Would appreciate your response!
@jlong16488 Is your degree summary gpa the same as your cumulative gpa? mine is exactly the same on lsac. My degree GPA should be much higher than my LSAC gpa
@lilymdileo170 You can take the LSAT writing on the same page on LSAC where you check your scores. There are no live proctors during the writing part. They video record the entire session instead and there are instructions that ask you to show your surroundings to the camera much like the FLEX exam.
Mistaken reversal is simply when you forget to negate an argument. If stimulus states A --> B, a mistaken reversal of this would be: B --> A. If you negated the conditions to get /B --> /A, this would be correct, and no longer a mistaken reversal. Hope that helps.
Anyone know if the scratch paper needs to be blank or can it be ruled/lined?
In PSA arguments, it's okay for the answer choice to be more broad than the argument in the stimulus. "All high speed roadways" includes "level, straight stretches of high speed roadways", and so it's within the scope of the argument.
Answer choice C is compatible with the premise and does not attack it. Answer choice C is showing us an alternative way of interpreting the premise and that the sufficient condition of /Widespread agreement --> /DNA is not necessarily satisfied, since there can still be widespread agreement of how reliable a test is even if there is a controversy of exactly how reliable. Therefore, you cannot properly conclude /DNA, which is flawed reasoning.
Planning on taking the lsat on April 25 if anyone wants to meet up and take PT's/BR together under exam conditions and just overall kill this exam together. If anyone is interested email me at leehhl1123@gmail.com or leave a comment here (check every day or so)
@elaine760 Hi when do you think you can give us an update?
Totally forgot that you're trying to wreck the support from premises to conclusion in the argument, not the conclusion. Much appreciated!
The conclusion states that "Blue Irises cannot be part of the city's art movement". The negation of (C) gives us "Blue Irises is an abstract painting", which doesn't necessarily prevent the conclusion from being true - which is the point of negation, to wreck the conclusion, correct? Isn't there still the possibility that Blue Irises is an abstract painting and still NOT a part of the art movement, meaning the conclusion still holds. The stimulus doesn't state that all abstract paintings are part of the art movement. Perhaps there are abstract paintings in the city that belong to some other group, not the art movement. I can see how the negation of (C) now allows for the possibility that Blue Irises does belong to the art movement, but I feel that it's not enough to bring it to the point of certainty. Would appreciate further explanation!
Applying the negation test to answer choice (C) didn't completely wreck the argument yet it's still the necessary assumption. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that it also serves as the sufficient assumption as JY pointed out. But shouldn't necessary assumptions always invalidate the argument when negated? #help
Is anyone studying in Seoul around Gangnam interested in making a study group? I'm planning on taking the March/April LSAT for the second time if anyone wants to kill this exam together, lots of study cafes here to take PT's/BR at
Whether they need to try "many" different types of food is not necessary. The stimulus merely says that fish in experimental hatcheries are bolder in "trying new types of food".
"X is necessary for A" essentially means "A requires X": A --> X
In conditional language "X necessarily results from A" also means A --> X, since if A occurs, X must also necessarily occur. But it also implies a temporal relationship (someone correct me if I'm wrong), meaning that in order for X to occur, A must occur first.
Oh I understand now that grammatically speaking, there is only one interpretation of it. That six months ago, both of those two events happened. Took me a while to see it. Thanks!