Community Profile

General · PT M20 BR call - Wednesday, March 31st, at 5pm EST. [Done]

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, Mar 30 2021

interested!

1

PrepTests ·

PT131.S3.Q13

mamckendrick496

Saturday, Apr 24 2021

This reminds me of another LSAT question (can't remember which PT). But essentially,

the author states the ratios of 2 groups within a set. Then he makes an assumption about them generally (i.e. within the population as a whole). In doing so, the author overlooks how prevalent each group is within the population as a whole.

Ex:

P1: When 100 people who have not previously cocaine are tested for cocaine use, on average 5 will test positive.

P2: By contrast, of every 100 people who have used cocaine, 99 will test positive.

C: Thus, when a randomly chosen group of people is tested for cocaine use, the vast majority of people who tested positive will be cocaine users.

Flaw: We can’t possibly conclude this because we don’t know how many non-cocaine users and how many cocaine users are in the general population and in this case, the randomly selected group. Say the randomly selected group consisted of 200 non-cocaine users and 10 cocaine users. Then the majority would actually be non-cocaine users. Likewise, if more large cars are getting in accidents, it could be the case that the majority of those getting injured are people with large cars.

8

PrepTests ·

PT134.S2.Q21

mamckendrick496

Friday, Apr 23 2021

Basic Translation:

P1: Iliad and Odyssey differ in tone and vocabulary.

C: They are not the work of the same poet.

Flaw: Author jumps from because they were different in certain aspects, they were not written by the same author. That’s a pretty big leap.

Loophole: What if…Homer simply changed up his style? Isn’t it possible that a writer can write in different tones/vocabularies? Or what if.. because these stories were passed down orally, other people mistakenly changed some characteristics of Homer’s original work?

Prediction: We’re looking for an AC that weakens the jump that because they were different in tone and vocabulary, they were written by different people.

A) Fell for this during timed practice, but this doesn’t do it - the fact that hymns were “attributed” to Homer still leaves room for the possibility that Homer didn’t write them. B) Originally thought this played to the second loophole, but the premises explicitly state they greatly differ. It’s as if it’s attacking the premise.

C) Yes - although it’s technically outside the scope, it’s a direct counter-example that casts doubt on the validity of the author’s conclusion. Although not an ideal AC, it does weaken it slightly and more so, than any other AC.

D) So what?

E) Plays to the second loophole, but 1) doesn’t say that Homer actually wrote the Iliad and Odyssey and 2) doesn’t mention that they changed the tone and vocabulary of the works. If it had, it would be a better weakener.

Don’t love counter-examples because the outside the scope issue, but this AC is better than the rest. If any one has other examples of correct Acs using counter examples that would be great!

#help

3

Study Groups · Looking for April Study Buddy

mamckendrick496

Thursday, Mar 18 2021

Scoring in the low 160s as well and also interested!

0

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q18

mamckendrick496

Saturday, Apr 17 2021

Question Type: Flaw

AC: Provable

Argument:

P1: Graft includes objects valued at more than $100.

P2: There are no officers with such gifts in the precinct.

C: Recent accusations of graft in the precinct are false.

Flaw: This is a limited options flaw - just because the author mentions something (a list for example) includes 2 options does not mean it's limited to those options. In this case, graft includes objects valued at more than $100, but it could include other things the author isn’t mentioning.

Loophole: What if…there are other things that count as graft?

B tackles this loophole.

4

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q9

mamckendrick496

Saturday, Apr 17 2021

Question Type: Strengthen

AC: Powerful

Task: Choose the AC that, if added to the premises, makes the conclusion more likely to follow.

Argument:

P1: RAB fly in an irregular pattern.

P2: Predators avoid poisonous butterflies, but RABs are nonpoisonous.

P3: Flying in this irregular pattern is not energy efficient.

C: Therefore, it must be the case that this irregular flying pattern is used to evade predators.

Flaw: The author jumps from explaining an activity that the RAB simply does to concluding the reasoning behind it. In doing so, she is overvaluing one characteristic to arrive at an unwarranted conclusion.

Loopholes: What if.. they fly in an irregular pattern for a completely different reason unrelated to avoiding predators? What if… this characteristic is not uncommon among different types of butterflies?

What we need: We’re looking for an AC that makes it more likely that avoiding predators is THE REASON RAB fly in this weird way.

A does this. Didn’t choose this at first because I was skeptical of it being out of scope but now clearly see how it’s correct. If poisonous butterflies, although already capable of avoiding predators, fly in this irregular pattern too, then it could be for a completely different reason. A defends against this loophole.

Lessons Learned:

With strengthen questions, don’t immediately eliminate ACs that seem out of scope. Sometimes, especially with correlation/causation arguments or “reason” arguments, a correct AC may mention the other/opposite group - i.e. if the opposite group, who didn’t have the supposed cause, also did not have the effect, then it could be more likely the author’s causation argument is valid.

9

PrepTests ·

PT143.S1.Q6

mamckendrick496

Saturday, Apr 17 2021

Question Type: RRE

AC: Powerful

Argument:

P1: SUVs are safer for occupants than small cars.

P2: Yet, an analysis of recent fatality stats has led safety experts to be concerned about the increasing popularity of SUVs.

Question: How is it that, although SUVS are safer for its occupants, safety experts are concerned about more people buying them?

Possible scenarios: What if.. SUVs are contributing the increasing fatality stats?

A) Driving more safely would not help resolve this discrepancy - it actually makes it an even bigger discrepancy

B) Fuel consumption? This explains nothing.

C) Ok, they may carry more passengers, but are these the passengers involved in the recently fatality statistics? Unsure - we can’t make that assumption. Also it’s weak in nature (tends to - don’t know how often that is).

D) Yes - this links the fatality statistics directly with the SUVs. If there are more SUVs, chances are higher for collisions involving SUVs.

E) This just mentions collisions - but we don’t know if those collisions actually cause fatalities.

1

PrepTests ·

PT142.S1.Q6

mamckendrick496

Friday, Apr 16 2021

#help

Chose A during timed practice, but am getting confused in reviewing why it's correct. If anyone has insights that would be great:

Question Type:

Weaken

AC:

Powerful

Argument:

P1: GFJ has a chemical that affects how certain medicines are absorbed. In doing so, normal medicines act like high doses.

P2: This is dangerous.

P2: It's always desirable to take the lowest effective dose.

C: The best approach is to take lower doses of medicine along with prescribed amounts of GFJ.

Flaw:

In making a recommendation, and describing it as "the best," the author could be overlooking 1) certain disadvantages to said plan or 2) alternative approaches that would be better. Our job is to find an AC that weakens the possibility that this plan is the best approach.

A) Chose this - if the amount of chemical is highly unpredictable, there is a possibility that it could affect how high the medicine reacts - some people could not get enough of the dose they need; some people could be get too much of a dose. BUT my question in reviewing this is: Does the amount of chemicals matter? We know there is this chemical in the GFJ. What if, no matter the amount, even the smallest amount would greatly increase the dosage?

I know this is an assumption, but I also think assuming that there's a proportional relationship between the amount of chemical and how much it affects the dosage is an assumption. I'm also waaaay overthinking this, but could use some clarification.

0

PrepTests ·

PT143.S3.Q13

mamckendrick496

Wednesday, Apr 14 2021

Task: Find an AC that makes the conclusion less likely to follow.

AC: Powerful

Argument:

P1: Sure, graduate students teach classes.

P2: But their sole purpose is to enable them to fund their own education

C: We should not give teaching assistants the same benefits.

Flaw: The author is overvaluing a key difference between the 2 groups - their purpose. Because graduate students’ purpose is different, they should not be treated like teachers. But in drawing out a key distinction, the author overlooks possible similarities between the 2 that may call for them to be treated similarly.

Loophole: Can’t graduate students perform duties other than their sole purpose? What if… they are more similar to the faculty than the author lets on? We need to find the AC that exploits this flaw, and brings us closer to the conclusion that they should be treated like teachers and receive similar benefits.

A) Cognizant? Don’t care.

B) Adjunct professors? We’re not talking about adjunct professors?

C) Yes - that would make them more similar to teachers than the author lets on, and therefore makes it more likely they should be treated like university professors. Essentially, teaching assistants are so similar that they can replace university teachers - performing not only their sole purpose but the duties of the faculty as well.

D) Not sure really what this has to do with the argument…honestly just skipped it because didn’t understand how it related.

E) Hesitated on this because it points out a similarity. But it doesn’t drive at the sole purpose reasoning the author uses - they could work just as hard but do completely different things. Also “other” threw me off - what if the “other” refers to like 2 professors? Does that weaken the argument? No.

1

PrepTests ·

PT141.S4.Q20

mamckendrick496

Wednesday, Apr 14 2021

Question Type: Strengthen

Correct AC: Powerful

Task: We’re looking for an answer choice that strengthens the relationship from premise to conclusion, making the conclusion more likely to follow.

Argument:

P1: There is a positive correlation of high amounts of G in the blood and nerve cell damage in stroke patients post stroke.

P2: If G, which is usually in nerve cells as neurotransmitters, leave from damaged/oxygen-deprived nerve cells, they CAN be destructive to other nerve cells.

C: It must be the G that leaks from the damaged/oxygen deprived cells that causes the long-term brain damage.

Flaw:

The author describes a possible scenario (if G is leaked from damaged/oxygen-deprived cells, it can cause damage), to then conclude that it is, indeed, the cause.

Loophole: What if…what’s simply possible actually doesn’t happen? What if we have a high volume of G that comes from another source and isn’t necessarily destructive? Our AC needs to defend against this loophole, providing a piece of info that would make G from damaged/oxygen-deprived cells more likely to be the cause of the brain-damage.

A) this almost weakens it - if any neurotransmitter can cause damage, then any one of those neurotransmitters could be the potential cause...

B) This also weakens it? - if there are a ton of abnormal chemicals, any one of them can cause the brain damage? Who knows.

C) OK, but we don’t know if any have in fact leaked...

D) Yes - this defends against the loophole. If the high volume of G is composed only of G from damaged/oxygen-deprived cells, then we know there are a bunch of Gs in the blood capable of destroying nerve cells.

E) This statement really doesn’t have anything to do with the argument. We know from the premise that they have the ability to leak G, which is all we need to know.

3

PrepTests ·

PT141.S4.Q3

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, Apr 13 2021

Flaw: Find the flaw the author is making

AC: Provable

Argument:

P1: Studies show that people who consistently use sunscreen lotions get equal if not more skin cancers than those who usually don’t wear them.

C: Sunscreen lotions don’t work.

Mental Reminder: In flaw questions, there could be many flaws. We must narrow in on the specific flaw the author makes in jumping from premises to conclusion. (In some convoluted arguments, there however could be a jump in sub premise to sub conclusion.)

Flaw: The author cites many studies (at least one) and uses a comparison between 2 groups of people to arrive at a general conclusion. Because it’s a study comparing 2 groups of people, I need to consider that the groups might not be controlled. The author seems to be leaving out critical information that confirms this study was conducted appropriately/ that the only difference between these groups was amount of sunscreen lotion used.

Loophole: What if the groups of people are different in another key aspect? e.g. what if one group’s skin is just way more sensitive to the sun and the sunscreen lotion actually prevented a large number of skin cancers?

B) gets at a type of flaw - but not the one used in jumping to the conclusion.

E) gets at the central flaw.

0

LSAT · Loophole in LR Book - Worth buying? / General LR advice ?

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, Apr 13 2021

I just purchased the loophole and have liked it - I'm not sure if the information is radically different from 7Sage material, but it instructs you how to actively hunt/prephrase the potential objections to every argument before heading into the ACs - that way, you're not going in blind to the ACs. I find the most difficult part of LR is knowing why each answer choice is correct/not correct and this helps with that.

1

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q20

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, Apr 13 2021

Question Type: Necessary Assumption

AC Type: Provable

Argument:

P1: Farmers started using chemical fertilizers.

P2: This led them to abandon using GM crops.

P3: As a result of not using GM crops, the soil was destroyed.

C: To improve the soil —> farmers need to stop using chemical fertilizers.

Flaw: The author notes a casual relationship in the premises, and we can’t question the validity of the premises. (The availability of chemical fertilizers led farmers to stop using green plants that rejuvenate the soil. As a result, soil became shit.) Then he makes a jump to - hey, we need to abandon chemical fertilizers in order to rejuvenate the soil. But why is it that we need to take this action? What’s crucial about abandoning chemical fertilizer in order to get better soil?

Loopholes: Why can’t we improve soil structure while also using chemical fertilizers? What if…we used chemical fertilizers in addition to just planting those GM crops that help the soil?

A) Most farmers growing alfalfa is not necessary; they could simply grow other GM crops to improve soil (lesson learned: pay attention when they list an example as part of a group - this can throw you off)

B) Why would we apply fertilizers to crops?

C) Most important? Too strong/doesn’t need to be true.

D) Picked this but see now how it’s wrong - If our conclusion that fertilizers have to be abandoned is true, it doesn’t need to be the case that chemical fertilizers themselves have a destructive effect on the soil structure. They could have an indirect effect on the soil structure. So, its not necessary...

E) Correct. This AC confirms that we need to abandon the chemical fertilizers. If they continue using the chemical fertilizers, then the farmers won’t grow the GM crops, which rejuvenate the soil.

0

PrepTests ·

PT120.S3.Q4

mamckendrick496

Sunday, Apr 11 2021

#help I understand how B could weaken the argument, however "other" areas threw me off and made me eliminate the answer choice. This is because I immediately assumed it was out of scope - sure, in other areas of gambling, parents were able to raise good children, but how can we assume it will be possible for parents to raise good children in this area specifically?

When "other" is mentioned in strengthen/weaken questions, how are we supposed to determine if it's applicable and would help/hurt the conclusion vs. it being completely out of scope? I know we're being asked to make the conclusion more/less likely to follow (so it doesn't have to absolutely prove anything) but I'd like to make sure I understand when something is in scope and when it's not.

Any insight appreciated! Thanks!

4

PrepTests ·

PT154.S1.Q20

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, May 11 2021

Q type: Strengthen except

Task: Find the 4 Acs that will strengthen the argument (can differ in levels at which they strengthen); one that doesn’t is your answer.

Basic Translation:

P1: WT is based off Euripides’ Alcestis.

P2: Shakespeare did not know Greek.

C: He must have came to know the play through a Latin translation.

Flaws: 1) Author concludes from the fact that because Shakespeare did not know Greek, it HAD TO BE THE CASE he knew Alcestis from a Latin translation - i.e. author assumes there was no other way Shakespeare came to know the play. 2) Author assumes Shakespeare could understand Latin.

The 4 Strengthening ACs will 1) confirm Shakespeare could read/understand Latin and/or 2) block out other potential sources he used to know Euripides’ play.

A) No - just because they were widely used does not mean Shakespeare actually understood Latin.

B) Shows that Shakespeare did not use this English translation; if he did, it would resemble more so the English translation rather than Euripides’ work.

C) Yes, adds support in that Shakespeare would have access to a Latin translation and it would resemble Euripides’ work.

D) Yes, makes possible that Shakespeare learned/understood Latin.

E) Yes, in other scenarios Shakespeare used Latin translation so he could certainly do it in this case.

Lessons Learned: Some Acs will have little assumptions - some are reasonable while others are not. If you can equally assume that something is or isn't the case, it's not strong enough to actually weaken or strengthen the argument, as is the case with A.

0

PrepTests ·

PT154.S1.Q16

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, May 11 2021

Q type: Weaken

Task: Find the AC that, if added to the premises, would make the conclusion less likely to follow.

Basic Translation:

P1: Record keepers were clergy members.

P2: They would exaggerate people’s religious devotion.

C: We should doubt their view that peasants were religious.

Flaw: Just because clergy members would/could exaggerate does not mean they did exaggerate. Also, just because they would exaggerate people’s devotion, does that mean they would exaggerate peasants’ devotion.

Loophole: What if…even though they would exaggerate people’s devotion, they didn’t when it came to the peasants?

We’re looking for an AC that would exploit these flaws and make the conclusion less likely to follow.

A) OK so they have a number of documents about nonreligious activities of peasants. First, a “number” is too weak - is that 1 document? 2? Secondly, a group that participates in both religious activities and nonreligious activities tells us what exactly...

B) Again, how many is many? 1? 2? Also, what does more time have to do with the chances of them exaggerating peasants' religious devotion?

C) Weakens it a bit - in other cases, it’s evident that these clergy members did not exaggerate the activities of a group. If they didn’t exaggerate with merchants/nobles, it’s possible they didn’t exaggerate with the peasants. This weakens the reasoning the author uses in reaching his conclusion.

D)has nothing to do with the argument

E) OK, they made detailed descriptions of peasants' participation...what does this do for the argument? nothing

2

General · PT77 BR Call - Thursday, April 8th, at 5pm EST.

mamckendrick496

Wednesday, Apr 07 2021

Thanks @ for organizing! Will be there!

1

PrepTests ·

PT146.S2.Q19

mamckendrick496

Thursday, May 06 2021

Basic Translation:

P1: any new natural-gas powered station —> located near NG pipeline, a large body of water, and transmission lines.

P2: any new natural-gas powered station —> residents will not oppose construction

P3: we have transmission lines, but they are located near only three bodies of water

P4: in these areas, residents would oppose new construction

Modifiers:

New, natural-gas-powered electrical generation station

Predictions:

Oppose —> won’t be built

C matched the general prediction. If suitable --> we need transmissions elsewhere because the existing ones are only near three bodies of water where residents oppose.

Example of a question where paying attention to the modifiers pays off

0

Study Groups · Central time: looking for BR study buddies on Saturday morning/afternoons scoring 165+

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, Apr 06 2021

@ , I am interested! My scores are currently ranging from 163-168, and hoping to get a bit more consistent in the upper 160s/low 170s by June. Essentially studying for this full time, so Central Time works for me.

1

PrepTests ·

PT146.S2.Q16

mamckendrick496

Wednesday, May 05 2021

Basic Translation:

P1: caffeine —> irritating acid

P2: roast beans longer --> darker roasts —> contain more NMP —> suppresses acid

C: darker roasts —> less NMP —> less irritation.

Analysis of Argument:

The author makes a classic net effect flaw: because one thing has more/less of an element/characteristic compared to another thing…[general net effect conclusion.] In doing so, the author emphasizes this one difference and overlooks other possible factors that can contribute to the overall conclusion.

In this case, the author does it on 2 levels (I think):

1. Because darker roasts tend to suppress acid, the author assumes it has less acid overall. (Loophole: Whose to say that suppression of acid is offset by another factor, i.e. caffeine, that produces more irritating acid? You could then have the same or even more irritable acid)

2. Because you have less irritating acid in your stomach, you have less overall stomach irritation. (Loophole: What if darker roasts have something else that tends to make stomachs upset?)

AC A picks up on the first one. What made this question difficult was how easily the stimulus is able to distract us from the initial instigator of irritability - caffeine. The author introduces it but goes on to explain this long casual chain. So by the time you get to the end of the chain, you almost forget about the initial instigator and focus on a seemingly reasonable argument.

B is the one I fell for, but 1) this is out of scope because out conclusion concerns stomach irritability, not stomach function and 2) it accepts that first assumption in saying that darker roasts do in fact reduce acid. As noted, we don't know if this is case.

Lessons Learned:

1. In causation/correlation flaws and net effect flaws (as well as many other types of flaws), the LSAT writers can disguise/hide a possible alternative cause/factor etc. in the stimulus.

2. Always stick to the scope of the argument.

2

Study Groups · LG perfection study group for June?

mamckendrick496

Tuesday, May 04 2021

Interested as well if you're still taking people! Scoring -0-4 but would like to get more consistent on the lower end of that, lmk!

0

PrepTests ·

PT148.S1.Q16

mamckendrick496

Monday, May 03 2021

Basic Translation:

P1: Our report indicates that 1 in 2 million airplanes go off course during landing.

P2: Opponent’s report claims the number of airplanes that go off course during landing is closer to 1/20,000.

P3: Our report is based off a thorough study of pilot error reports for commercial flights.

P4: Their report is based off a partial review of AC tapes.

C: Their report is unreliable.

Flaws:

Author concludes the overall reliability of the reports based off 1 being a partial study of AC tapes and the other being a thorough study of pilot error data. Doesn’t seem like a terrible argument, but the author is ultimately determining the reliability of the reports based off this one comparison, possibly overlooking other key factors that contribute to the overall reliability of both reports. In doing so, the author assumes other things are somewhat equal.

Task:

Find the flaw - we’re looking for one that may describe how the author has overlooked something else that would affect the conclusion regarding overall reliability. Use the 2 step test to check the AC.

ACs:

A) encourage pilots to be more cautious? Not descriptively accurate.

B) Skipped this on timed by not understanding how it was in fact descriptively accurate , but it is. “Those who make mistakes” refers to the pilots documenting their errors. This AC confirms that the author has overlooked the nature of the data and how it's being gathered rather than just quantity of data.

C) Not descriptively accurate.

D) Fell for this but in reviewing it, it’s not descriptively accurate - the author does not imply that the data is inaccurate in anyway; just not complete.

E) Not descriptively accurate.

Lessons Learned:

When an argument seems pretty sound, it could simply be the case that the author is not telling us something that would really affect the validity of the conclusion. In comparing 2 things, it might be another key factor that would affect the conclusion, or it could be the case that they're not telling us something about the specific things being compared.

1

LSAT · June Flex Scheduling is live!

mamckendrick496

Thursday, Jun 03 2021

thank you @ !!

1

Study Groups · June 2021 LSAT (Central Time)

mamckendrick496

Friday, Apr 02 2021

interested! messaging you my email if you're still planning to form a group.

2

Discussions

POE for RC?

Confirm action