Discussions

michellejeewonpark560

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General · Forum Awards - Chattels for Chatterboxes

michellejeewonpark560

Friday, Nov 02 2018

Thank you for the giftcard, 7sage!

PrepTests ·

PT148.S3.Q24

michellejeewonpark560

Friday, Oct 12 2018

R ‑m→ WAC would be that most of the restored manuscripts are widely acknowledged to be of cultural significance.

However, the stimulus is saying that most of the WAC manuscripts will be restored. You used the the "most" statement to apply to the wrong group in your interpretation. This is why the sentence is diagrammed as WAC ‑m→ Restored

PrepTests ·

PT147.S1.Q13

michellejeewonpark560

Friday, Oct 12 2018

There is no conditional relationship with unethical and unnaturalness in this stimulus, which is why D is incorrect. W just says that it's unethical bc they are put in unnatural environments, not that "if something is unethical it must be in an unnatural environment."

D would be the correct answer for a question that involves a mistaken reversal, like the stimulus saying "If P, then Q. Q happened. so P happened."

PrepTests ·

PT144.S3.Q23

michellejeewonpark560

Wednesday, Oct 10 2018

The stimulus talks about how the "law will not be passed for many years, if at all." It feels like the "promptly" part of E addresses that part of the stimulus. In this case, I don't feel as though it is an exaggeration. Also, since this is a PSA question, my understanding is that it doesn't have to match up, word for word. In this case, even with the addition of promptly, it justifies the author's conclusion that if it is a democracy, it is not a well-functioning one.

POE also helps with this question:

A: benefit most people is not the same as many people favoring it. eliminate.

B: opposed by influential people is not the same as people adversely affected are influential people. eliminate.

C: Again, they introduce the concept of ppl "opposing" the law, rather than those who are adversely affected. eliminate.

D: The focus with this answer choice is on the bill, not on whether the democracy is well-functioning or not. eliminate.

LSAT

•

Wednesday, Oct 10 2018

michellejeewonpark560

PT85.S1.Q14 - Through years of excavations and careful

Not sure if there are many people who have already solved this PT but would really appreciate the opportunity to pick your brains regarding this question.

I initially chose D. My reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns with other animals could perhaps reinforce or weaken the idea that more full grown male horse bones = people rode horses. What if mortality patterns of domesticated goats living with the Botai also shows that they had more full-grown males, thus also going against the typical pattern for domesticated animal usage? What if the Botai people just really love male animals? Basically my reasoning was that looking at mortality patterns of other animals could be a point of comparison.

I guess the weakness to my reasoning is that even if goats or other animals go against the typical hypothesis re: domesticating animals, the hypothesis regarding domestication of horses could still be true? So in essence it may not be a good point of comparison and may not yield any information to evaluate the hypothesis? I'm not sure, just trying to pick holes in my reasoning.

I also tried to reason for A: So I'm thinking this is a way for the author to evaluate whether the presence of more male bones than female bones is good enough evidence for the conclusion. If more bones show signs of being gnawed on or something, it could maybe weaken the claim that the Botai people rode horses.

Am I on the right track with A? What do you think regarding my explanation for D?

Admin note: edited title

PrepTests ·

PT105.S2.Q24

michellejeewonpark560

Wednesday, Oct 10 2018

Hi, have you checked out b.nott's explanation below? I think it does a great job of explaining this question.

PrepTests ·

PT121.S1.Q15

michellejeewonpark560

Edited Saturday, Sep 13 2025

So for necessary assumptions, they need to be correct for us to come to the conclusion. If the argument is valid, then the necessary assumption also needs to be correct.

This link sums it up pretty well: https://7sage.com/blog/approach-necessary-assumption-questions

PrepTests ·

PT103.S2.Q8

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 08 2018

The way I would've interpreted this argument would be like this:

P1: Welfare state feasible → use their own funds to help others → unselfish attitude

P2: people seek out their own well-being (/unselfish attitude)

Subconclusion: The assumption that people are unselfish is false

Conclusion: The welfare state cannot be implemented (/feasible)

I don't think the "welfare state feasible---- unselfish attitude" is context. It is showing why the assumption that people are unselfish is a false assumption.

PrepTests ·

PT129.S2.Q22

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 08 2018

Strengthen questions don't have to be an absolute thing that guarantees the conclusion. It could be something that strengthens the argument enough for us to think it is more likely (with the addition of this info) that the clovis points were not invented in NA, which is what A does.

Also, I found that process of elimination works pretty well with this question.

B: This would weaken the argument.

C: Strength of the clovis points is irrelevant to the argument.

D: Could potentially weaken (brings up the idea that humans somehow went back and forth)

E: Weakens the argument, the clovis points could have been left behind when they went back and forth.

PrepTests ·

PT132.S2.Q15

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 08 2018

The wording is kind of confusing, but we can rephrase that sentence to say:

"If she is right, we should be able to discern the true meaning of Smith's statements from her social circumstances."

So it becomes true meaning → insight into social circumstances. "discern" is used to refer to the "true meaning of smith's statements" and not "smith's social circumstances."

PrepTests ·

PT115.S2.Q12

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 08 2018

The sentence he gets it from is "It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals." It's a bit difficult to identify, but this is basically a conditional statement. It's the same as saying "If the government restricts the liberty of individuals, that is wrong." So RL → W.

PrepTests ·

PT126.S4.Q15

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 08 2018

Ah i see your point. I agree with your assessment that B is too extreme.

I also think I mischaracterized the argument in my original comment; the focus of the argument is whether a specific motivation is required for a specific outcome, and not whether the product is commercially viable or not. The commercial viable part is just an added on characteristic of the product being made out of motivation for personal gain. I think if B said something like "takes for granted that technology beneficial to society cannot be produced due to motivation of personal gain rather than societal benefit," that would be correct and also is basically what C states.

PrepTests ·

PT121.S1.Q17

michellejeewonpark560

Sunday, Oct 07 2018

The flaw here is that the author thinks he can say "all species of ants" just from a "class of ants." The "classes" of animals referred to in the first sentence is just ants on a broad, general scale. However, the author then takes it a step too far by generalizing and concluding that all species of ants are threatened species. Maybe there are only a few species within the class that are successful in spreading everywhere. We have no idea. That's why it's a whole to part flaw. The author generalizes that all species of ants (part of the class of animals) are successful because ants (the whole, class of animals) are successful. Hope that makes sense.

PrepTests ·

PT126.S4.Q15

michellejeewonpark560

Sunday, Oct 07 2018

B says that technology that benefits society cannot be commercially viable.

I think it's more of the opposite. The argument says that since people who create tech advances are motivated by personal gain rather than societal benefit to create a commercially viable product, the resulting technology cannot be beneficial to society. It seems like the author is assuming if the product is commercially viable/motivated by personal gain, then the product cannot be beneficial to society.

B is also out of scope because the argument is in regards to technological innovation that's brought about by personal gain while B talks about technological innovation that's beneficial.

PrepTests ·

PT121.S1.Q15

michellejeewonpark560

Saturday, Oct 06 2018

B is wrong because of degree. It is too extreme. For us to come to the conclusion that it is a mistake to view them as mutually exclusive, we don't need to establish that they are ALWAYS together, but rather that they are not mutually exclusive at least once.

If we negated B, we get "It is possible to shape public opinion without reacting to it." This doesn't weaken or destroy our argument because I can say, "well, there's this other instance where shaping public opinion does also accompany reacting to it" so it would be a mistake for us to say they are mutually exclusive!

Hope that makes sense.

PrepTests ·

PT140.S2.Q18

michellejeewonpark560

Saturday, Oct 06 2018

I agree that it is an assumption that doesn't really seem too important or even necessary for us to come to the correct answer choice but it comes from the usage of the word typical in answer choice E.

For us to say "typical benefits," we would have to assume that the flexible scheduling policy usually produces the benefits of job satisfaction, productivity and attendance (the benefits that nonmanagerial employees show), rather than the zero benefit shown by managerial employees. If we had a company of 20 managers and 1 nonmanagerial employee, it would be difficult for us to say that typical benefits of the flexible scheduling policy include job satisfaction, productivity and attendance when the vast majority of company employees do not show any benefit from the policy.

I don't think this is a necessary or important assumption though, just one to show how "typical" could be interpreted to mean in this situation.

PrepTests ·

PT102.S4.Q20

michellejeewonpark560

Saturday, Oct 06 2018

Hi! So B does sorta have an analogy but the form of the analogy is not what we are looking for. If you look at the stimulus, the argument goes something like this:

Saying that gorillas have the capacity for language but never put it to use is like saying animals have the capacity for flight (wings) but never used it.

Both the gorilla and flight statements have this kind of common characteristic: A has the capacity of B but never uses B.

Answer choice B just talks about earth being visited by aliens is like early explorers visited NA but never founded cities. The first analogy used of earth being visited by aliens doesn’t talk about some kind of capacity that aliens have but isn’t satisfied. The second part also doesn’t have that kind of characteristic. If it said “early explorers had the capacity of founding cities but never did,” then it would be a step closer.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S4.P4.Q25

michellejeewonpark560

Thursday, Oct 04 2018

Including effectively is correct because the passage states in line 55 "she does not completely undermine their contention but she does counter their assumption.." So she doesn't completely destroy their disagreement but she does challenge an assumption that they had.

PrepTests ·

PT125.S3.P1.Q4

michellejeewonpark560

Thursday, Oct 04 2018

I don't think there is any information in the passage that can back up any of the other answer choices. There is no textual evidence that the author viewed Marshall's strategy as subjective, necessary or arbitrary. There is textual evidence (lines 14-15) that would support answer choice C though. While I understand your reasoning with unprecedented, just by process of elimination I feel I could eliminate my way to C. Most times you won't get an answer choice that is a direct synonym or directly interchangeable. However, you'll get close enough that you could back up the answer choice with textual evidence.

PrepTests ·

PT130.S1.Q18

michellejeewonpark560

Thursday, Oct 04 2018

D is saying that the author assumes:

if your airline is the safest → your airline is also the most reliable in documenting safety.

The conclusion is that the major airline is safer based on the fact that their safety record has been reliably established. The author actually assumes the opposite of D (if your safety record has been reliably established → you're the safest)

PrepTests ·

PT102.S3.Q12

michellejeewonpark560

Thursday, Oct 04 2018

I think more of a practice thing. Practice will help you notice assumptions more quickly. Make sure that you're looking for the conclusion, and then evaluating the support that the author is giving for the conclusion. Is it enough for us to come to the conclusion? any flaws? any assumptions? It helps to approach questions in that kind of methodical way for questions before you actively start PTs and timing yourself.

PrepTests ·

PT130.S1.Q9

michellejeewonpark560

Wednesday, Oct 03 2018

Hey!

So the argument is:

People who need to 1. reduce fat intake and 2. consume fewer calories often turn to things like N5.

But since people who eat N5 don't consume fewer calories, N5 has no use to people who need to 1. reduce fat intake and 2. consume fewer calories.

Immediately, I think that it's too extreme to say that N5 has absolutely NO use on the basis that it doesn't achieve 1 of the 2 needs. We don't know if it also helps reduce fat intake. This is how E weakens the argument. If we found out that it did reduce fat intake then it would be hard for us to conclude that N5 is completely useless.

On the other hand, D is incorrect because whether people are aware or not is irrelevant to weakening the argument. Even if Matt eats 5x more N5 than his friend Paul, who doesn't know what N5 is, in the end, the study still concludes that people who eat N5 make up for the calories they didn't consume by eating more. In the end the amount of N5 consumed or the knowledge of what N5 is is of no importance to the stimulus because the study has already established that people make up for the calories by eating more.

General · Forum Awards - Chattels for Chatterboxes

michellejeewonpark560

Wednesday, Oct 03 2018

<3 <3

PrepTests ·

PT144.S3.Q13

michellejeewonpark560

Tuesday, Oct 02 2018

Here, the argument is:

P1: TV network's ad grossly misrepresents the TV drama.

P2: People who tune in to watch the drama based on false expectations (aka misrepresentation) will not watch subsequent episodes.

Conclusion: So the tv network's ad won't be as effective as the ad the producers favored in gaining viewers.

Saying that the producer-favored ad is going to be more effective would only make sense if the producer-favored ad didn't misrepresent the TV drama. If it did, the whole argument would fall apart! That was the reasoning for why the tv network ad wouldn't succeed so why would a producer-favored ad succeed if it did the same thing? That's why answer choice B is correct.

C is incorrect because the reason as to why TV viewers are tuning into the tv show is irrelevant. The argument is talking about people who watched the ad and then watched the show. People who watched the show but not the ad are not relevant to establishing that the producer-favored ad would be more effective.

PrepTests ·

PT132.S4.Q18

michellejeewonpark560

Monday, Oct 01 2018

For my review:

P1: /ssc

P2: cc → at least as intelligent as humans

C: a2d sentient beings → at least as intelligent as humans

Immediately i see that the necessary for the conclusion is the same as the necessary for P2. so I’m thinking that I’m going to have to connect cc to a2d in some way. but wait, there’s also another premise that we can’t send a spacecraft. I’m thinking this is one of those arguments where it’s A→ B or C and we have a premise where /B so we conclude A→C.

Here we have an argument that is basically like:

premise: /A

premise: B→C

conclusion: E → C

I’m thinking something along the lines of E → A or B. Since /A, we would get to E→B which would link up to E→B→C.

D matches in that it gives us /B → /E or A since /A, /B →/E, which gives us E→B. In the language of the stimulus, D would give us: /ssc → cc or /a2d

but if we are a2d, then /ssc → cc which would give us a2d → cc → at least as intelligent.