Discussions

lukerldavis280

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT109.S1.Q13

lukerldavis280

Wednesday, Oct 30 2024

So, B simply says: The motivation for administrating a placebo can have an ethical outcome (justified or unjustified).

I don't know why answer choices get so cloudy to me sometimes. This was so obvious but I glossed over it due to "for doing so."

LSAT · PT49.S4.Q23 - Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those

lukerldavis280

Friday, Aug 30 2024

Yes, thank you! What you said finally clicked with me. Non-comparison can mostly lead to self-acceptance and accepting of others but other things can lead to self-acceptance being accepting of others too. Non-comparison does not have an EXCLUSIVE relationship to self-acceptance and being accepting of others.

PrepTests ·

PT105.S1.Q23

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Oct 29 2024

I just did not understand C as a sentence. Well, we are concerned with deep tilling and not tilling (at all), So, C is really saying:

All other forms of tilling [than deep tilling] are not viable options.

Thus, the argument can maintain its binary nature of 'deep' tilling and 'not' tilling as @StudyingInConnecticut pointed out.

PrepTests ·

PT119.S2.Q10

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Oct 29 2024

Honestly, I gave up on A due to grammar parsing. If I just parsed it as such, I would have picked it:

Residency training does not contain an indispensable aspect which requires resident physicians to work exceptionally long hours.

OR even more clearly (to me)

There ain’t anything in residency training that says doctors gotta work crazy long hours.

PrepTests ·

PT111.S1.Q20

lukerldavis280

Monday, Oct 28 2024

I did this question twice and now only realized that the first sentence contains the conclusion before for. So we get:

C = convincing

E = expert

AA = Almost Anyone

Premises: C → E

Conclusion AA → E

Our goal to solve this is an answer that says: AA → C which makes the conclusion of AA → E true because of...

AA → C → E

thus

AA → E

And that's what answer choice A does.

LSAT · PT49.S4.Q23 - Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Aug 27 2024

I hope there is no rule against reviving old posts, but I have struggled with reconciling how answer choice D is correct and here is how I addressed it broadly and concisely:

Broad Flaw: The counselor is using their majoritarian view of "Comparing" to justify a majoritarian view of "not Comparing," it also causing a majority response without considering "something else (the non-majority causes in the premises outside of almost invariably being at least 50%+1 but not 100%)" and other variables:

Concise/Generic Flaw: Assuming that if a majority of variable-effects are true, the opposing or opposite variable-effects are also true in the majority; all without considering other causes of the opposing or opposite variable-effects.

Does this make sense or is this the wrong way to approach getting to answer choice D?

Lessons · Lesson 2 - City Council Vote or Abstain

lukerldavis280

Friday, Oct 25 2024

I get it now.

The first part of answer choice A is cancelled out by the second premise, so really what we'd be left with if we chose A is:

Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. GAP IN ARGUMENT. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Ok, but there is a still a disconnect between the desired voting behavior of the council and that of the voting public. What assumption would make the conclusion absolutely assured, in all its potential behavorial variations and etc? Answer Choice B.

Just for fun, if we combined the condition of A with the sufficient condition of B, we'd get:

Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal should not be decided by the city's voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Right? #feedback

PrepTests ·

PT144.S3.Q23

lukerldavis280

Wednesday, Oct 23 2024

I was between B and E.

The stimulus tells us that if most favored and opposed by influential passage THEN no passage.

A and B → /C

C → /A or /B

Passage imples that it doesn't care (/) about passage and it doesn't care (/) about opposition.

The lack or presence of passage or opposition does not mean passage is confirmed.

So E is the safer choice.

PrepTests ·

PT129.S2.Q17

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Oct 22 2024

#feedback

What about the "if" in "So, if your magazine..."

Wouldn't that preclude E as an option, or am I supposed to take this conditional "if" to "So" as an absolute; that what "if" is conditioning is always true... which makes E the right answer.

Lessons · Lesson 4 - City Council's Wisdom (W)

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Oct 22 2024

So basically the large returns would not be actualized to the same level (at least) if the target city had smaller starting variables. It's kind of like starting investing with $1,000 at 10% return and expecting to get the same return as one investing $1,000,000 with a 10% return. It ain't gonna work out like that.

PrepTests ·

PT128.S3.Q15

lukerldavis280

Sunday, Oct 20 2024

I guess "since the 1960s" includes the 1970s so I shouldn't have been so quick to discount A.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q16

lukerldavis280

Thursday, Oct 17 2024

Story time:

My brain changed the question stem when I was considering both C and D. At first I thought I was doing a properly inferred question and then I realized I was doing a must be false question and then by seeing the congruence between C and D in terms of structure, my brain switched to thinking it was a properly inferred question again and I chose C which is practically a must be true answer.

Okay, quick guide to this question:

The last sentence of the stimulus tells us that this person has never seen someone who is both qualities. So this means he ain't seen one person who is both wise AND intelligent. But he does recognize one person can be one of those qualities at a time.

Read the question stem and realize we're looking for something that MUST BE FALSE. So, that means incorrect answers could be true or consistent with.

A, B, and E are off the table because it is making inferences on the composition of the group. We really only know what one person will be, not these groups mentioned in these three answer choices.

So we're left with C and D. Well, the last sentence of the stimulus and C line up pretty well.

As for D, it is basically saying that ain't nobody wise or intelligent at all. Not one soul is wise. Not one soul is intelligent. That is just not supported by the stimulus at all and in fact it contradicts it. How? Because the essayist has met at least one person who is either wise or intelligent.

Not sure if DeMorgan is needed here. Just make sure you know it's a MUST BE FALSE question.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q7

lukerldavis280

Sunday, Oct 13 2024

So the question stem is really saying: The stimulus violates which principle?

A says [if you recognize incompetence as a factor], then [you can't say a corporation is engaging in dishonesty].

If we fully regard Terry's "anyone can make mistakes," as Terry recognizing incompetence as a factor, then why did Terry conclude "deliberate avoidance" for the corporation? Which is supposedly dishonesty.

Lessons · Example Argument - Disney Vacation Club

lukerldavis280

Thursday, Jun 13 2024

The whole video is true but I imagine Walt would have avoided the app altogether and printed his pass to save on propitations and prostration to Goofy.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q2

lukerldavis280

Tuesday, Oct 08 2024

I guess this is one of the quirks for learning the LSAT. I had the same reaction as ME1230 to the word 'guarantee.' I guess guarantee really does mean a 100% chance of getting an accurate tax advisor at all times. So no guarantee is a 0% chance of getting an accurate tax advisor at all times.

With my mistake of interpreting guarantee, I thought A was the answer despite it being an overgeneralized conclusion of the twenty-person sample.

Lessons · Lesson 1 - Baxe Interiors - MSS Review

lukerldavis280

Monday, Oct 07 2024

I like to think that C requires two assumptions whereas E requires only one assumption.

C: requires you to assume "several small companies" is enough "for the most part," and equivocate "awards" to being "superior." It could be the case that awards are only given to smaller firms for "fairness" or that they are equal in quality to large firms.

E: You only have to assume the last part of C again. This is one less assumption.

PrepTests ·

PT113.S2.Q23

lukerldavis280

Sunday, Oct 06 2024

My problem is that I translated "decreased demand for antique ivory would cause a decrease in demand for new ivory" to mean that because it did not say "any ivory" for the first mention, that they both did not say this, so consistent with for both. But I forgot be inclusive of the fact that decreased demand for any ivory means includes "decreased demand for antique ivory." And it's even gently referred to in the stimulus. I can be so blind!

PrepTests ·

PT119.S3.Q9

lukerldavis280

Friday, Oct 04 2024

I get why A is stronger than C.

"When legislators discover that some public service is not being adequately provided" also means "When legislators discover that some public service is failing."

I failed to see that connection. I thought that just because it was inefficient didn't mean it was failing, yet the stimulus said that this is for public services that are not being adequately provided (failing).