- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
#help
Is it correct to get this question right by zeroing in on the fact that the author listed two fundamental properties of motor oil and then affirmed that since one is fulfilled by all motor oils tested then it means that the cheaper brands are the best buys?
The author said that:
Motor oil serves to lubricate engines AND thus retard engine wear.
Then he affirms:
All the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders.
But what about lubricate engines, did the cheaper brands do equally well in lubricating engines?
In this light I understood answer choice E for saying that lubricating engines is another property of motor oil that is fundamental for the running of an engine.
#help
I answered this question correctly but approached the stimulus differently than J.Y. I interpreted the part that says “who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken” to be a description of the kind of “people” the stimulus is referring to. Therefore, I teased out the logic in this way:
People (who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken)
Interest NOT coincide → Regard advice with Skepticism
so
NOT IC → SK
Therefore, I approached the answer choices in this way:
A – Even if the interest of H and F do not coincide, the stimulus does not suggest a rejection;
B – Perfectly resembled my interpretation since S and R “NOT IC” then R should not reject the least expensive models. So, he must be skeptical about S’s advice;
C – In this case M and Y interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;
D – In this case S and R interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;
E – Even if we can infer that M and J interest did not coincide because M wanted to purchase a more expensive fish while J wanted to sell her a cheaper one, in no way we can conclude that M should follow J’s recommendation, so “NOT SK”.
What do you think?
Thank you in advance to whoever is going to answer.
Best,
Marco
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-4-question-19/
#help
I answered this question correctly but approached the stimulus differently. I interpreted the part that says "who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken" to be a description of the kind of "people" the stimulus is referring to. Therefore, I teased out the logic in this way:
People (who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken)
Interest NOT coincide → Regard advice with Skepticism
so
NOT IC → SK
Therefore, I approached the answer choices in this way:
A - Even if the interest of H and F do not coincide, the stimulus does not suggest a rejection;
B - Perfectly resembled my interpretation since S and R "NOT IC" then R should not reject the least expensive models. So, he must be skeptical about S's advice;
C - In this case M and Y interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;
D - In this case S and R interest coincided so it did not trigger my conditional;
E - Even if we can infer that M and J interest did not coincide because M wanted to purchase a more expensive fish while J wanted to sell her a cheaper one, in no way we can conclude that M should follow J's recommendation, so "NOT SK".
What do you think?
Thank you in advance to whoever is going to answer.
Best,
Marco
Good morning @aawolola1419 , I am aiming at a 165 as well and would love to join the group, are there any spots left?
Thank you so much Mr. Busis, unfortunately the schools for which I will be applying do not show a percentile range. Thank you so much for your help and have a great day!
@davidbusis895 said:
@marcodelg687 Admissions Information for Canadian Law Schools links to a spreadsheet with medians or averages, which we hunted down on the schools' websites. I don't think the schools all disclose their 25th and 75th percentiles. They're not subject to ABA regulations.
I'm interested, 156-157 range, trying to break through the 160 barrier. Email: marco.delg@mistu13144.com @mistu13144