Discussions

User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT101.S2.Q11
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Thursday, Apr 24 2025

The text explanation lists two inferences we can make. Is another inference we can make /prof ←s→ /vote? (Not saying it is notable inference, just trying to clarify my understanding of formal logic)

0
PrepTests ·
PT133.S4.P4.Q26
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Tuesday, Apr 15 2025

I think we have to be cognizant about what the question stem is asking--just the purpose of the word in the passage. Perhaps it's implied that both scholars take issue with the propaganda... Even so, if we look at AC A, neither passage really brings up a "claim of a rival approach." Sure, Passage A brings up the relativist historians, but doesn't go so far as refute any claims, and it's not related to propaganda. I don't think Passage B brings up a rival scholarship approach. But even if we were to assume the rival approach was propaganda, there weren't any pro-propaganda claims made for the author to refute.

A bit late, but hopefully this helps you or another person scrolling through!

0
PrepTests ·
PT133.S4.P4.Q25
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Tuesday, Apr 15 2025

I agree that this is a bit tough. Although Author B doesn't explicitly state something like "objectivity is essential to historical scholarship," the author still takes a positive attitude towards objectivity. I gathered this from how the author uses the powerful argument as an example of objectivity, and goes on to describe a bunch of benefits to the powerful argument. Because the powerful argument is an extension of objectivity, I thought it was AC B was a fair (and the best available) answer choice.

0
PrepTests ·
PT134.S4.P2.Q12
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Apr 13 2025

Yeah, that's a fair piece to get tripped up over. I think what helped me get over that hurdle was the phrase "self-contained." In saying a proverb is self-contained, I interpreted this to mean that someone could understand the phrase, by the phrase alone.

Here, I also feel like the passage's use of "specific" might actually mean "any"? Like, a proverb doesn't need any verbal context specified. I'm not too sure about this second point though

1
PrepTests ·
PT134.S4.P2.Q11
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Apr 13 2025

It took me a while to understand how JY eliminates answer choice A for Q11. I realized when he described including/excluding Spain, it was actually a high-level summary of my thought process (apologies for the word vomit in advance--only posting so I can articulate my thoughts and hopefully help another 7Sager out!).

Reason 1 to eliminate: In the passage, "Many [Spanish-language proverbs] belong, in fact, to the common proverb tradition of Europe." The "common proverb tradition of Europe" phrase is identical in the passage and the answer choice. "Many" in the passage is not the same as "most" in the answer choice, so that's reason enough to eliminate answer choice A.

Reason 2: Some people, including myself, focused on, "the great majority of Spanish-language proverbs reached Mexico from peninsular Spain," and knowing that Spain is a part of Europe. So, shouldn't we think that the this subset of proverbs has their origin in Europe?

However, there is the rest of the sentence: "not all [Spanish-language proverbs] originate there [in Spain]. Many belong, in fact, to the common proverb tradition of Europe."

To be honest, I am not sure what "common proverb tradition of Europe" actually means, but the author is making a distinction between 1) proverbs originating from Spain, vs. 2) proverbs from a common proverb tradition of Europe. These two subsets can't overlap. So, while the majority of proverbs are coming from Spain, we can't assume that they also belong to the common proverb tradition of Europe.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q8
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Wednesday, Apr 09 2025

This is an interesting question! I'm inclined to agree with you.

My approach with necessary assumptions is if we negate the answer choice/assumption, the conclusion won't follow.

The negated principle would say: education → /increase one's moral responsibility.

The conclusion says: we should provide education.

Why would the author suggest providing education, when based on the stimulus, it doesn't do anything?

0
PrepTests ·
PT134.S3.Q9
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Monday, Apr 07 2025

Replying to myself 6 months later lol

D just isn't relevant to explaining what the lawmakers' intents or thought process is. If the conclusion is about what a person thinks, it doesn't really matter how well that aligns with the real world.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P4.Q23
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Saturday, Apr 05 2025

I wonder if you might be bringing some outside knowledge into this question? As someone who had no idea what Lamarckism or Steele's hypothesis before reading this passage, I could see how Steele's hypothesis vindicates/supports Lamarckism. From the passage alone, an average reader would take away that Steele is seeking to support for "Lamarckism hereditary mechanism." I'm sure there is actually way more nuance to the differences in their hypotheses, but at least from the passage, I can see why B is the right answer. I also find it difficult to see how the other answer choices could work as the right answer, so B seemed like the best choice here.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P4.Q26
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Saturday, Apr 05 2025

I think your thought process is solid! In the video explanation, JY rules out (E) because the trait passing is happening through the yolk sac, rather than through a virus. Steele's hypothesis relies on viruses carrying the altered DNA to the reproductive system. E) is actually weakening Steele's position because it introduces an alternative hypothesis to the phenomenon. This is similar to the principle you expressed in your comment (alternative hypothesis = not the original mechanism that the hypothesis is predicated on).

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q18
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Friday, Apr 04 2025

I did not have phonemic awareness while attempting this question

12
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q18
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Friday, Apr 04 2025

You may have commented this before 7Sage started updating video explanations, but yes! In the new explanation video by Kevin, one of the reasons to rule these choices out are just what you mentioned. We don't really care how the conclusion of "motivated by snobbery" could trigger other conditions--it's not relevant to the existing premises and conclusion.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q19
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Wednesday, Apr 02 2025

Hi! Question for the tutors if you respond to these... in the comment above, the tutor noted that the premise was the first sentence of the stimulus, and the conclusion was the remaining sentences. This is how I originally read the stimulus as well, but the text explanation for this question has it the opposite. How should I be interpreting the argument?

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q21
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Wednesday, Apr 02 2025

Not sure if this response will get to you at this point. Answering this question just to practice and help out others scrolling through:

That's a fair question, especially when you bring in real-life curiosity. To be honest, it doesn't matter in the stimulus or answer choice why the wholesalers do or do not want to make substantial profits. D is just saying, the pharmaceutical price guide has prices intended to make profit. This explains the price difference to the current prices, which is the gap we want to resolve.

To entertain the hypothetical scenario though, JY gives a good idea for why answer choice D could occur--the wholesalers might be in a price-war with one another. By cutting costs, it would increase demand and capture more customers than competitors.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q19
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Tuesday, Apr 01 2025

Good point--I feel like outside of the LSAT, we would naturally want to know why the RF lemurs became nocturnal. However, the discrepancy we're trying to reconcile is just the differing levels of nocturnal activity between RF and DF. We don't really need to know why the (RF) lemurs become nocturnal in the first place.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P1.Q1
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Mar 30 2025

This part of the answer choice helped me reconcile the gap you're pointing out: "was perhaps the first truly national black theater." The "perhaps" is qualifying the strength of the answer choice's claim, which more closely matches the passage's strength.

To fit this into your analogy, it would be like saying, "Bob was perhaps the closest to getting a perfect score on the LSAT than anyone before him." By using "perhaps," there may have been others before Bob... but maybe there weren't!

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P3.Q19
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Mar 30 2025

There were two reasons I thought answer choice A was wrong.

First (and the more straightforward reason), Passage B is a standalone passage about gender roles. We don't know if there are more passages about gender roles than there are about women's history, at least from Passage B's existence on its own. So, we can't really say if Passage B demonstrates that there's a lack of articles on women's history.

Second, I wasn't sure if Author A thought the integration of women's history in the historical mainstream is far from complete. Author A raises suspicions that the focus on gender roles leaves out some information, but I don't think they are taking a position as strong as the answer choice is stating. Particularly, the phrases like "I am left to wonder" and "I share the suspicion" are kind of soft. If the author had made a more solid position, like "But the focus on gender roles leaves out a significant amount of information on women's history from the mainstream," then perhaps answer choice A would be more appealing.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P3.Q17
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Mar 30 2025

I ruled out answer choice B because, based on the passages, I don't know if Passage B really failed to take into account all available evidence. What if there wasn't any historical evidence on individual women? And maybe that's why Passage B only focuses on gender roles rather than individual women? So, I wasn't very confident in this being the right answer choice.

Now for why answer choice D is a better choice: What is the trend in scholarship that Author A talks about? It's the trend towards gender roles. The strengths and weaknesses are that it's a good analytical tool, but overlooks individual women. This is basically what is occurring in Passage B.'

Hope that helps!

2
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P3.Q19
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Sunday, Mar 30 2025

This response might not reach you at this point, but might help another person scrolling through the comments. Even though Author A thinks that gender role analysis has some shortfalls (mainly that it overlooks individual women), I don't get the sense that Author B thinks gender role analysis is unsuccessful in fulfilling its purpose of analyzing social and political structures. That's why I wasn't too swayed by the word "successfully." Hope this helps!

2
PrepTests ·
PT145.S3.P3.Q17
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Saturday, Mar 29 2025

The first part of answer choice B might seem to support Maritain's view, but the second part does not really:

1. "Animal vocalizations may have evolved..."

This is connecting the evolution and the conditioned behavior, so I could see how this part is appealing as the right choice.

2. "...because they have the potential to alter listeners' behavior to the signaler's benefit"

To rephrase Maritain's claim, it's that signaler bees communicate to listener bees where they found food, and that there is no conscious intent by the signaler bee. From that, this second half of answer choice B doesn't really support Maritain's claim. Maritain isn't claiming the signaler bees are trying to benefit by altering the behavior of the listener bees; Maritain is just saying it's a reflex.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S3.P3.Q19
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Saturday, Mar 29 2025

This was really great meta-analysis, props to you for articulating your thought process! I was in a similar boat of selecting E during timed, but thankfully selected B during blind review.

You noted, "If we look at [passage] B independently, we can say that he doesn’t take an explicit stance on the research questions posed by the research he cites, however he does take the position that the interpretations/approaches of said research are not sufficient or even necessary to answer such questions." This is what I mostly focused on when ruling out E too.

To me, Author B doesn't take a stance on the research findings themselves; rather, they take a stance against the logic. Author B isn't straight-up rejecting the conclusion that non-human animal communication → conditional reflex (the OPA), nor are they fully embracing the conclusion that non-human animal communication → intentional.

Tying this to an LR type of question, while there is a flaw in the argument structure, the conclusion could be true still. I think Author B is mores pointing out the flawed argument structure.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q20
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Friday, Mar 28 2025

Watching JY answer this question timed (in the live commentary video) and immediately circling the right answer, no mapping or anything... what a king

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q15
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Thursday, Mar 27 2025

Similar to the commenter above, I'm just trying to refine my understanding by adding explanations, even if a little outdated :>

In response to the original commenter's statement of "if so, you don’t need C to be true because you will already benefit by extending the possibility":

This is assuming that extending the possibility → benefit. In fact, this is exactly what we need to prove.

0
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q7
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Wednesday, Mar 26 2025

Responding a few months later, so hopefully this is still helpful for you! It sounds like you might be interpreting C as the right answer, if the question were asking you to resolve/reconcile/explain or strengthen why forgers include insects in amber, rather than why normal-appearing insects → likely fake. I could see why the value of insects vs. plants in amber could play a role in the former question, but it's not relevant to the conditional claim in the conclusion.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q1
User Avatar
michellevmallari873
Tuesday, Mar 25 2025

Dang I CHOKED here

Anyways, I went wrong with C when I completely mixed up the incinerator with the power plant. I didn't catch it during blind review either :'( I thought C was saying that the town/city/wherever already had a power plant with immense air pollution, not a crappy incinerator. I was thinking, even if they got the waste-to-energy plant, isn't there still a question of why the environmentalists didn't support a less polluting gas plant? But, yeah, it makes sense after seeing JY's explanation.

0
User Avatar
•

Tuesday, Mar 18 2025

michellevmallari873

Study Schedule for the Full-Time Workers

How long (whether in terms of hours or across a span of days) does it take for you to do the following?

  • Blind reviewing your PTs before checking your score

  • After your PT score reveal, going through video explanations on your missed or flagged questions

  • Drilling before your next PT

  • Overall, time between your PT attempts

    • I ask because it takes me about a month to get through all of this, and that seems much longer than what I hear is recommended. Granted, I am aiming to increase my study time on the weekdays, so that should establish a faster cycle. I currently study an hour per work night, on average. For weekends, about 2-3 hours per day.

    My distribution is something like:

  • 1 week for blind review

  • 1-1.5 week of video explanations

  • 1-1.5 weeks of drilling

  • Overall, 3-4 weeks between PT attempts

    • Open to any tips you all have!

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?