- Joined
- Mar 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
this q highlights the importance of tracking different groups and being able to parse through a dense stim for lr standards
committed a repetitive mistake: confusing a causal argument for a conditional one, consequently overlooking an error in the author's claim (removing something that harms endangered species may have a counter-balancing, and potentially more damaging effect)
I think the reason we can move from ~uncomfortable -> comfortable is because the context and/or morphology of the adjective permits us. With regards to public places, a space is either comfortable or not (uncomfortable). In other situations, we could not take a binary opposite of a term (for example not being happy does not mean sad). So, I think the context/structure of the word is what allows us to take the leap.
Hi everyone! I have been studying for the LSAT for the last 6 months and have found difficulties in breaking into the 160s. My test is upcoming in October so I was looking for tutoring to gain some feedback on my approach to questions and tips to improve. I have been increasingly studying for the exam over the last few months after balancing it with school and work during the school year and feel diminishing returns from my studies! After my PTs, the correct acs seem clearer to me which is frustrating. Please let me know if anyone currently has space!
if you chose d, like me, you most likely failed to match the premise side. The argument states because attempts to resolve others' problems lead to resentment and are ineffective, even well-intentioned attempts are unjustified. D is very attractive because it uses the same wording (intentions being irrelevant), but the ac doesn't use this line of reasoning. It just provides a statement supported by the stimulus, that intentions are irrelevant to the justification. Rather, e uses the same p->c (if your actions do not also result in success, your actions aren't justified).
after thinking about this I think C is the correct ac because we are trying to support the conclusion that kids develop strong aversions to some foods, specifically some of the foods that don't cause their sickness but were the most distinct. Thus, having acute tests strengthens the bridge toward the conclusion, that children develop strong aversions to distinct but not necessarily sickness-causing foods.
Would love to know if anyone had a different interpretation of this!
@Chlob Hang in there man the lsat is a marathon, not a sprint. Just keep going over the basics and practicing!
This is quite a difficult one and I made the most sense of this afterwards through the process of elimination:
a -> comparing modern and old gas-fired power plants is not the comparison the author is making.
b-> this fact is applied to both and doesn't imply why we should pick a over b.
d-> okay? irrelevant.
e-> who cares?
thus, C makes the most sense (which is obv helped by the other weaker ac's).
c-> if the waste-to-energy plant replaces an existing trash incinerator that pollutes more, this premise does the most to account for the environmentalists' claim that they'd choose the waste-to-energy plant.
@yunzhu-1-1-1-1 From what I understand I don't think it is classified as an intermediary conclusion because the premises tell us 'comfort -> fatigue' and 'visibility -> awareness,' but nothing in the argument provides support for the claim that driving position affects comfort and visibility. Thus, the statement "driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" is better served as a premise that directly offering support to the conclusion, that the position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety.
a is wrong because the author doesn't actually modify anything? Instead he advocates for modification while "a general defense" is given through highlighting the oath's adaptations, such as the reinterpretation of the phrase "cutting for the stone"