- Joined
- Dec 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
read through some of the comments and now i'm second guessing my approach here lol. I got this right under semi-timed conditions (untimed drill, but I self-timed to get a sense of how long 1-2minutes actually feels when I'm struggling with a question!).
My thought here was that the argument is putting forth a (dubious) correlative premise, and then arriving at a prescriptive causal conclusion. If everyone in the world wants to be happy as possible (not just happy), they should consider Not having a pet. Implicit here is the assumption that pet parenthood negatively impacts happiness relative to non-pet parents.
So answer choice D says actually - for most people, having a pet is a positive causal factor towards their happiness. They are happier (not just happy) because they have pets.
interesting argument where I definitely see the causal vibes (lawyers' bad behavior Causes hinderance of correct jury verdict), but the conclusion reads more like a conditional statement. When lawyers bad → reasonable to doubt verdict. So AC D gives us a case where Lawyers Bad, but the outcome is not what the conditional would've had us assume. Which weakens!
@sarahmacrorie819 it's more of an argument-specific flaw than a cookie cutter flaw type, but if I had to shoehorn it into one of the 19, it's somewhat of a false dichotomy? Or maybe hasty generalization?
The argument only gives us support for knowing about Stars, Planets, and Generating Light.
If Star → GL || If No GL → definitely Not a Star.
If Planet → No GL || If GL → definitely Not a Planet
and if you're a Celestial Object, you're not a Planet (at least within this galaxy/the domain of this argument)
Author then concludes that Celestial Objects must generate light! But they also aren't stars. (?) Which is weird.
What made it click for me is realizing the author is trying to draw an arrow between two sufficient conditions. He's drawing an arrow between CO and GL. Both CO (celestial object) and GL (generating light) are sufficient to know that you're Not A Planet. Author then says okay so CO and GL must be related - If CO → GL! If CO, you're not a Planet, you must generate light.
But planets don't have to be the only things that do not generate light.
If you're a celestial object, we have no premises to support the assumption that you generate light. For all we know, from the given premises, CO → GenerateLight is a fair game.
The author's flaw is failing to rule out (failing to consider the possibility) that a non-planet, non-star, Celestial Object doesn't HAVE to generate light. They could also not generate light, despite not being a planet.
@LevinKin7sageLSATDESTROYER very old comment so I'm more-so asking the general 7sage public - PT126.S4.Q5 was anyone else able to connect this to this PT158 question? I feel like I'm missing something. Is the connection here that both correct answers are approaching the stimulus from a "trust the experts" pov?
I need help - I am violently overthinking and it's costing me level 2 questions :( somehow I read this and came to the conclusion that the author's conclusion is "the opponents should admit that my thesis is correct" -- NOT "my thesis is correct"
I see now that obviously the thesis being correct is nestled into the larger conclusion that the opponents should admit the thesis is correct...
but this being the 26th question, I really thought I was doing something smart here with AC C -- I thought we don't know whether the Astronomer's thesis actually is correct at all!
@MichaelWright i just have to say how helpful it is to see these links and examples lol i am creating a drill with these questions right now because this pt 158 question really f'd me up
But I thought Pulford did state the principle explicitly? Pulford's last sentence is the principle that he is using to support his conclusion no?
realizing that if i had read the paradox statement as "why did the foundation chose to build a modern organ despite their goal of reconstructing the church to its original form?" - AC A makes more sense.
I had interpreted this paradox more from the angle of "why did the foundation choose to Not rebuild the old organ despite their goal of reconstructing the church to its original form?" - and that's how I waltzed myself into AC D.
@mateoking same same same. I thought I knew - but I did not know. I thought "angler" was short for anglerflish, i'm pretty sure i only know about anglerfish from finding nemo? in my mind, those are the fish with the weird illuminating hooks hanging off their head but what do I know. I literally don't know and it cost me this question lmao
i got this right but felt like i just got lucky.
I understand that AC A saying “most people” is an issue … but I also feel like saying “People” is like saying “in general, typically, usually” etc, all which imply “most” ?
I ended up eliminating AC A because it said that the argument used a claim about what most people appreciate—to me the argument only said that people “MAY” appreciate.
@SeanStrauss this was my first time getting -1 on RC so I won’t pretend like I have any wisdom to share haha pretty sure it was mostly luck. I still struggle with Implied questions but progress is in progress! The worst feeling is going through blind review and seeing all of the bars turn from green to red sigh I switched from the right answer to the wrong one and I need to stop psyching myself out! I try to come up with a prediction before looking at the ACs but I will admit I sometimes panic about timing and so then I go into the ACs and hope for the best — not -0 behavior that is for sure lol. Thank you for the response!
@ScienceAlex wow this is really interesting strategy! i am going to experiment with the highlight feature. i usually just yellow to make the conclusion and main premise pop, or sometimes i highlight the Verb i’m focused on in an Except question stem — i’ve never heard of using it in the answer choices themselves and I’m a bit embarrassed to realize i didn’t know we could highlight the ACs lol
i’m in a similar boat — just had my best RC section score ever with a -1! That same exam had -3 in one LR section … and then i missed 10 in the other LR section. Not sure what it was about that section that just wrecked me? Really unclear what next steps are but i’ll blind review and go from there i guess. How have you navigated the big variance in section scores?
Heavy agree — right now I use “Most Recent” … and then I scroll to the very very bottom of the filtered results lol I really wish there was a better way. A reverse sort makes so much sense.
@Phee 
i feel seen hahaha yup that's been my workaround too - but it's annoying to have to have this weird parallel google sheet i have to refer back to. It "works" but it's far from ideal
I am currently on the Live plan, but I prefer to watch the videos when they are recorded and uploaded so that I can pause, fast forward etc. What's cramping my flow is the lack of a way to keep track of what videos I've watched. It's the worst to settle in for a class video recording and then halfway through the 2nd problem you realize that you've already watched this class.
I'm shocked there's no playlist feature, no "Seen" tag? The bookmark feature is bare minimum tbh.
I'm also realizing that more recent classes tend to not be tagged by Question Stem and Stimulus Logic type any longer? Which is a shame because that's a great way to be able to sort through available content.
@quinn_andreychuk i found LSAT demon unbearably snarky lol I'm not sure they're any better on that front but everything is subjective of course
@mkalsi14 your explanation of AC B clicked with me. This is a strengthen question...but it's also lowkey a Resolve-Reconcile-Paradox question in disguise?!?!
Results for a retest are released the same day as the standard test administrations! So you should still get your score by aug 26th or so
@JEK23A i hate how good i am at convincing myself to pick the wrong answer with amazing and elaborate trains of thoughts
following/commenting to see if this gets more traction because i'm in the same boat. I've been watching some of the advanced causality classes and I totally get it while watching and working on the accompanying drill -- but it's just not really clicking the way i need it to click during the actual testing experience
i read this post from start to finish (but will pretend i didn’t read the SCOTUS line because i don’t want to hate you lol) and was engaged the entire time. the LSAT isn’t everything — if your personal statements read like this, i have to hope that will carry some weight with your program of choice too! I don’t presume to know anything about anything though and I’m taking the exam tomorrow, but I just wanted to wish you luck 🍀