Discussions

mhann007469

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q10

mhann007469

Sunday, Mar 27 2022

Hepatitis A (according to stimulus):

Infection------------60 Days Later----------> Symptoms (which let you know you have infection)

-If 50 people were given the vaccine in trials and 50 given the placebo and some people in each group got symptoms, but the vaccine nevertheless was succesful in prevention,

then

at least 1 person in the group that received the vaccine had hepatitis A already.

Even though this is the case, this doesn't mean that the vaccine as used in the test wasn't succesfful at prevention because one person in the test, who already had hepatitis A, wasn't impacted by its administration.

PrepTests ·

PT118.S3.Q17

mhann007469

Sunday, Mar 27 2022

In retrospect, I guess one way of looking at E as well while not getting hung up on thinking of it as a side-effect is to think of the development of the even deadlier form of chicken pox due to usage of the drug as something that will eventually occur, at some point in the future ,and not because the drug caused it to happen, but because usage of the drug contributed to it.

Side-effects from drugs, in comparison, seem to me to be something that happens soon after taking a drug because one has taken it. In other words, taking the drug directly caused - not contributed - to the side-effect.

This one was tricky for sure.

PrepTests ·

PT142.S4.Q24

mhann007469

Saturday, May 25 2024

Poor Goku...

PrepTests ·

PT108.S2.Q22

mhann007469

Tuesday, Sep 24 2024

Couldn't this AC C be understood with reference to conditionality?

If the claim is that one can be at home and not in the house:

Home→/House

And the conclusion is that one’s being at home is not required(G2 indicator) for one’s being in one’s own house:

House→/Home

Then, If the conclusion were TRUE, which is the first half of the disjunction presented by AC C, the claim would certainly be compatible with the conclusion because if we negated the claim itself (and nothing seems to preclude us from doing so) then it would read House→/Home just as the conclusion does in its true and affirmed state.

If the conclusion were FALSE, however, then the negation of the conclusion would read Home→/House, which the claim is compatible with as it reads just the same.

This is the way I understand Truth and Falsity as they pertain to conditional statements. To say a statement is true is to leave it alone and uphold it whereas to say it is false is to negate it.

PrepTests ·

PT125.S4.Q9

mhann007469

Monday, Sep 23 2024

I think AC A (which I didn't choose - I chose C) is almost like a logic game. It's a bit difficult to parse out but this made it make more sense to me than the way JY explains it.

Recap of AC A:

"It is always laudable to do something helpful to someone, but not doing so would be wrong only if one has led that person to believe one would do it."

Translation up to "but":

Do something helpful to someone ---> Laudable (always is G2 necessary indicator)

Translation of second half:

not helping would be wrong ---> one misleads another

Now, the Jacksons didn't mislead Sara (negate the necessary condition of second part of sentence), and so it would not be the case that them not helping her would be wrong (negate the sufficient condition of second part of sentence). It wouldn't de facto mean it would therefore be the right thing to do - it just wouldn't be wrong the wrong thing. Thats all we can logically ascertain at this point. Further, we can now disregard this portion of the complex sentence entirely, which is really just an exception class/rule/etc. to a situation that we've logically found to be not relevant to the Jackson's based on the info in the stimulus.

What still remains to be assessed, however, is the first part of the complex sentence that is AC A. If the Jackon's were to help Sara and thus, do something helpful for someone, then it would be laudable for them to do so. Given the information in the stimulus, we see that the conditional statement translated from the first part of the sentence of AC A can rightly (or at least mostly) be satisfied.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q7

mhann007469

Sunday, Oct 20 2024

I think the phrase being reinterpreted or rather, recontextualized, is "new diagnostic technologies"; not suffering.

I think they both understand suffering and use the term accordingly - they just disagree about whether that suffering is alleviated or impacted in any way by the use of new diagnostic technologies.

The Hospital Auditor doesn't see the connection between the two whereas the Clinic Administrator does.

PrepTests ·

PT127.S2.Q20

mhann007469

Wednesday, Nov 20 2024

Surprisingly and even shockingly, I didn't find this question hard at all; however, I was attracted AC C on an initial glance until I compared it with the language of E.

I didn't need to bring in any percentages and whatnot like JY did. Just a simple examination of the language of the passage and then the language of the two answer choices was enough for me to rule out C.

The crux of the argument in the stimulus is not the setting (i.e., context) per se, but rather what the setting/context requires of a psychotherapist - practicing psychotherapy on television while simultaneously trying to entertain audiences. It is in attempting to do this that the quality of the psychological help being provided by the TV shrink suffers; not because of some inherent quality or aspect of the setting it takes place in. That is why it shouldn't be done on TV according to the argument.

Further, the language is just too strong in C. I know we're dealing with the stimulus, but the AC would rule out practicing psychotherapy even within otherwise safe and clinical settings as there no doubt exists "a" chance in those settings that the help being provided could be of "less than high quality" - whatever that means. This just isn't what the argument is trying to get across.

PrepTests ·

PT118.S1.Q21

mhann007469

Saturday, Oct 19 2024

The premises we are given in the Stimulus are "SOME DO NOT" statements, which are the negated form of "ALL" statements.

*Extinction events ←s→ /followed by known meteor impacts

meteor impacts ←s→ /result in extinction events

Therefore, No consistent link between two*

AC A reads:

If there is a consistent causal link between the two phenomena, then all major meteor impacts would be followed by mass extinctions.

It isn't the case that all major meteor impacts are followed by mass extinctions because we know, from the premises, that SOME DO NOT.

As a result, the necessary condition is failed in AC A, which allows us to fail the sufficient condition resulting in the conclusion presented in the stimulus that there is no consistent causal link between the two.

What's important to remember here are the lessons on Negation and the Binary Cut (think of the line illustration where none, some, most, and all are points/ranges on the line). Negation of ALL statements are "SOME DO NOT" statements and the negation of "SOME" statements are "None" statements.

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q22

mhann007469

Thursday, Jul 18 2024

Awesome - I got the answer right!

Not Awesome - it only took me 35 minutes and 20 seconds to land on the correct answer while still not being 100% sure it was the right one.

PrepTests ·

PT101.S2.Q18

mhann007469

Sunday, Apr 17 2022

For me, this was a case of missing the forest for the trees.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S3.Q5

mhann007469

Sunday, Apr 17 2022

I don't get it at all.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q13

mhann007469

Sunday, Apr 17 2022

I could not identify what the discrepancy was, which is why I got this wrong.

Makes sense after watching the video explanation.

PrepTests ·

PT135.S4.Q14

mhann007469

Sunday, Jul 17 2022

The other problem with D is the usage of the term "Will", whereas in the stimulus, it mentions how other factors, such as instabilities in windflow, are likely to counteract.

D says it will definitely happen and thats not what the stimulus says.

PrepTests ·

PT104.S1.Q10

mhann007469

Thursday, Oct 17 2024

Weakening the Sale Managers Argument:

1) Last year the total number of meals sold in the company's restaurants was significantly higher than the year prior.

Therefore,

Consumers find their meals desirable.

OBJECTION!!!!!

It's not the case that consumers as a group find the meals the restaurants serve desirable, but rather the single, and only patron of the 3 restaurants happens to be a 96 year-old trillionaire philanthropist with no heirs who decided that the best way to spend his money and final years was by buying meals from the 3 restaurants to feed the entire local homeless population on a daily basis.

He kept it local initially, but last year, he extended his philanthropic project by purchasing meals from the 3 restaurants to feed both the local homeless population and the homeless population of the next county over.

PrepTests ·

PT113.S4.Q13

mhann007469

Thursday, Oct 17 2024

In questions like this, I think it's important to analyze the answer choices in conjunction with the premises and conclusion that make up the argument. The right answer choice should be thought of as an extra premise that takes the argument over the edge and makes it better (in the case of strengthening questions) or sinks/begins to submerge it (weakening questions).

If you do this, it is clear how answer choice D does nothing at all to support the argument presented in the stimulus.

For purposes of illustration:

1.) Patients of a Dermatologist are each complaining about rashes on one side of their face

2.) The rash is occurring on the side of the face where the telephone is held (reminder: correlation doesn't equal causation)

3.) Telephones are used by most people in the industrialized world

Therefore,

Prolonged contact with phones is what caused the rash for these patients of this dermatologist

Who cares if telephones are used by most people in the industrialized world? Does that by default mean that the rash these patients of this one dermatologist are complaining about is caused by telephones? What bearing does this have on anything? It's just a random and useless factoid that does nothing for the argument.

If you insert answer choice B, by contrast, as a premise, you'll see how it supports the argument:

1.) Patients of a Dermatologist are each complaining about rashes on one side of their face

2.) The rash is occurring on the side of the face where the telephone is held (reminder: correlation doesn't equal causation)

3.) Contact between other devices and the patients' faces occurred equally on both sides of their faces

Therefore,

Prolonged contact with phones is what caused the rash for these patients of this dermatologist

If (premise #3) the patients were putting - for example - an electronic heating pad on both sides of their faces, but the rash they're complaining about is occurring only on the side of the face where the telephone is held (premise #2), then this supports (although does not necessarily guarantee) that prolonged contact with phones is what is causing the rash. It can't be the case that it was the heating pad or whatever else that is causing the rash because if it was, it would be occurring on the other side of the face where the telephone isn't held, which received equal contact time with the side of the face where the rash is occurring.

PrepTests ·

PT101.S2.Q25

mhann007469

Saturday, Sep 14 2024

D is wrong because we cannot rule out in a hypothetical world of infinite possibilities, there being some lone, strange soul who labors under the idea that a claim is true even though they know it to rationally/logically be false.

We might think such a person is at best strange, and at worst, insane, but nothing in the stimulus rules out the possibility of there being such a person.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S4.P1.Q3

mhann007469

Sunday, Jan 14 2024

For anyone having trouble with Q3, I think a better way of understanding why A is the right answer choice is by reading on further and seeing the author's mentioning of there being a concept of shared sacrifice and burden that fall under this conception of a social agreement.

I was initially leaning towards choosing answer choice B but realized that I was bringing in prior knowledge and information from philosophy, history, etc., which is not what the question calls for; the question is asking for you to identify what the author meant by their usage of these terms. Presumably, this is just another way in which the LSAT writers are trying to trip us up.

General · Looking for Fast Growth in Short Period of Time - which lectures should I prioritize?

mhann007469

Saturday, Oct 12 2024

Scrap your plan and give the course it's due time unless you're already well versed in the material this test is based on. Even then, you'll need to familiarize yourself with the test itself and practice taking it.

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q24

mhann007469

Sunday, Feb 11 2024

I think even more specifically, E undermines what the anti-freudian's in the passage conclude in stating that dreams reveal nothing about the character of the dreamer. If this was so, and dreams were solely the result of electrical charges firing throughout the brain, then what explains the enormous variety in content of dreams?

In this way, the authors claim serves as an objection that is leveled against the anti-freudians conclusion with the intent to undermine it by bringing in another factor for consideration.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q2

mhann007469

Saturday, Oct 05 2024

Way too complicated of an explanation, JY.

The reason AC A is incorrect is because it doesn't address the fundamental problem, which is that despite increased international efforts to preserve the natural habitats of endangered species, we're still seeing an increase in the rate of extinction of these animals!!!

These international efforts and whatever form they take, which AC A can be considered as a particular form that falls under the umbrella of these conservation efforts, it still isn't enough to the speaker in the stimulus for turning the tide in the increasing rate of extinctions. Therefore, to them, these efforts to preserve, protect, improve, etc., these habitats have been a total waste.

AC B is the only answer choice that allows one to put distance between the premises and conclusion. It makes you stop and ask, "hey stimulus guy, I think you might be exaggerating. Have these efforts really been wasted like you seem to conclude if it's the case that, as a result of these efforts, some animals have been saved from extinction that would have otherwise perished?"

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q1

mhann007469

Saturday, Oct 05 2024

AC A also plays on our assumptions that going from studying alone to studying with a group of outstanding students is necessarily an upgrade. It could be, but it also could not be the case as well. Maybe it's a downgrade because the person has attention issues and gets easily distracted in the presence of others even if those people happen to be Nobel Prize Laureates in the particular subject matter.

PrepTests ·

PT105.S1.Q7

mhann007469

Saturday, Oct 05 2024

The way I eventually got to the right answer choice was by paying attention to the structure of the argument and diagramming it. It helps to show visually where the largest gap rests.

I was hung up on AC D initially until I realized that AC D just further illustrates why the costs of the brand name drugs are higher than the costs of the generic drugs. This is already known from the premise and is further admitted in the second half of the conclusion. There's no real extra need for strengthening that portion of the argument. It's overkill.

However, where a gulf exists is in the first half of the conclusion - How do you get from the premises of the two drug types having the same active ingredients to them being equally effective? It is the space between these two ideas where the potential for building a bridge and strengthening the argument exists.

We can even weaken it from this point by - for example - stating that the generic drugs are coated with a particular substance that adversely impacts the effectiveness of the active ingredients contained within. Therefore, it wouldn't be as clear from such a hypothetical weakening answer choice that the generic drugs are as effective as the brand name drugs.

PrepTests ·

PT105.S2.Q16

mhann007469

Saturday, Mar 05 2022

I got this question right, however, it took me about 10 minutes before I got it.

My brain just cannot process questions like these according to the recommended time one should spend on it (i.e., 2:00 miuntes).

PrepTests ·

PT102.S3.Q15

mhann007469

Saturday, Feb 05 2022

Uh, Mr. Ping, I have a group of elephants here at the front desk that would like to have a word with you. Should I buzz them in?

General · S.O.S (Post-Core Curriculum Frustrations)

mhann007469

Saturday, May 04 2024

Bumping - Anyone?

General

•

Thursday, May 02 2024

mhann007469

S.O.S (Post-Core Curriculum Frustrations)

I finished the Core Curriculum about 2 or so months ago (albeit not in a neat, consistent, and linear fashion - took me 2+ years) and after taking some drills in order to determine which areas I need to go back and review, I've gone back into the CC to do just that. I'm currently in the strengthening section of LR and I just finished one of the practice drills after having gone through (for a second time now) the lessons and guided practice questions.

Now, as was the case when I first went through these sections, it is taking me an unholy amount of time to get through these practice drills (anywhere from 20-45 min) and it is getting very frustrating knowing that it is taking me periods of time that exceed or come close to exceeding the allotted testing time to answer a mere 5 question drill. Additionally, and as if to add insult to injury, it isn't even the case that I'm getting all of the questions right within those time frames!

How, other than at the slowest snails' pace, can I possibly improve? I don't foresee myself being able to, at least anytime soon, complete entire sections of a test under simulated testing conditions.

Someone...anyone...please help!