Subscription pricing
.
PT Questions
munseong91869
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
munseong91869
Monday, Dec 23 2019
An alarm goes off in my head whenever I see the word "average." It rarely tells you anything.
Let's say the average number of children in large families reduced from 10 to 3, and in these countries the incidence of allergies in children has increased. But we are not told whether the increased incidence happened to large or small families. For the average to be 3, we can have some families having 5 babies and another having 1. The AC A doesn't say which of those families are experiencing increased incidence of allergies.
munseong91869
Monday, Dec 23 2019
I had to spend some minutes to figure out why E was wrong. E's wrong because there isn't a comparative. It would have been a better answer had it said something like, "An electronic keyboard may be cheaper to buy, but the money needed to fix it would be more than the money we save in buying it." Or something like that. Bottom line, we don't know whether the price saved < repair cost.
munseong91869
Saturday, Dec 21 2019
I have no idea why I was having such a hard time using the negate tactics to cross out A. But it just suddenly clicked. If we negate A it becomes, "some or ONE person wants his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met." This does nothing to the argument, because 99999 other people may still want to distribute their wealth to someone they know.
To make A the correct answer, we need it to say something very similar to D. To use the language in A, it becomes: "Some people don't want their estate to go to someone they have never met." It's absolutely necessary that we have at least one person who cares.
Trying to negate this hypothetical answer, it becomes: "No one doesn't want his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met". If we make this more readable by crossing out the double negatives, "Everyone wants his or her estate to go to someone he or she has never met." which wrecks the argument.
munseong91869
Saturday, Dec 21 2019
Many of those who study for the LSAT assume most people are academics haha. Failed to see that E focused too heavily on only the academics, instead of the Internet community as a whole.
munseong91869
Friday, Dec 20 2019
Not sure if this makes sense, but I was able to get rid of D by focusing on the "therefore, one OBSTACLE to reducing the automative trade imbalance will be removed if..."
If we negate D, it reads something like, "blah blah, most Japanese would NOT choose the North American model." But what they choose has little to do with whether an obstacle was removed. Japanese people not choosing NA models doesn't mean that the obstacle wasn't removed. Even if we change the "most" to a "some" or "one" -- as JY does -- it still wouldn't be correct. People's preference has no bearing on whether an "obstacle" has been removed.
+ I'm aware of the some not negation, but JY seems to be flexible where he uses it. I've seen cases where using it messes up the checking process.
munseong91869
Wednesday, Dec 18 2019
I found this question difficult because I automatically assumed that "continuous maintenance" entailed regular check ups. I mean, regular maintenance are suppose to lack urgency. That's the whole point of doing it. To avoid urgency. You're suppose to provide maintenance before problems arise. Otherwise, you would just call it a repair. With this in my head, E didn't make any goddamn sense.
munseong91869
Wednesday, Dec 18 2019
Distinguishing flash and intensive pasteurization brings down the difficulty of the question by a ton.
munseong91869
Thursday, Dec 12 2019
Oh wow. I just assumed that the control group would be fed unmodified potatoes. No idea how I managed to misread "normal diet of foods."
munseong91869
Thursday, Dec 12 2019
Crossed out C and went with B because "On average" doesn't really strengthen the argument in the stimulus, which is already characterized by a "probably."
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 10 2020
I feel like it's better to read all the answer choices for the newer LSATs...
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 10 2020
The language completely screwed me over here. In my country, when we say "apartment" we mean the whole building. So in some sense, homes/houses are inside the apartment.
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 10 2020
The main argument is that the scientists are hypothesizing that it is the BURROWING ACTIVITIES of these termites that's causing the circles.
munseong91869
Thursday, Jan 09 2020
Okay. So what screwed me over the most, other than imagining that two plates were on top of each other as opposed to on a single line, was how they played with "high/low" levels and "shallow/deep" subductions. They apparently are the same. Huge earthquakes had, traditionally, "high" or "deep" subductions, understandably. Not knowing much about this, I imagined something snapping as they were pushing into each other. However, "low/shallow" subductions provide earthquakes that are more frequent, because they "grind" for a longer period of time. They're not as powerful, but they occur more frequently (q26).
munseong91869
Saturday, Dec 07 2019
Had some difficulty in the first run because I thought "newsmakers" were newscasters -_-...
munseong91869
Tuesday, Jan 07 2020
Still not convinced... Why can't the SQ last for only an hour? There's nothing telling us that the SQ will last past 7PM. We have to assume that it will last for more than an hour.
munseong91869
Tuesday, Jan 07 2020
#help
Is there a way to drill questions like this? I always mess up these questions, no matter how "easy" they are.
munseong91869
Monday, Jan 06 2020
Wow... how in the world did I convince myself that the correct answer was A...
munseong91869
Saturday, Jan 04 2020
I hate these passages on political crimes. It takes me forever to figure out what in the world they are talking about.
munseong91869
Wednesday, Dec 04 2019
Having 0 knowledge on this topic, I found this reading passage extremely difficult...
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 03 2020
Ah I thought this was an MP question. %@#!$!@#
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 03 2020
#help
For #3, how can we know that the passage is describing a "novel" method of addressing a problem? Not knowing when John Rawls formulated his theory, the only thing we can know for sure is that it is "novel" compared to what came before it, which is tautological. I felt like for the AC B to make sense, we needed something that indicates the "novel"ness of the theory. As it is, the passage seems more interested discussing how Rawls's theory addressed certain issues with utilitarianism. There's nothing "novel" about it unless we are given a timeframe. :(
munseong91869
Friday, Jan 03 2020
Note to self: UQ-bordering conclusions require UQ-bordering answer choices in S/W Questions.
munseong91869
Monday, Dec 02 2019
Are there any samples of the writing test I can reference on the 7sages? I am awful when it comes to writing on paper (Asia test) and I want to have a firm structure in mind before I go in.
Reflecting on some of my common mistakes in RC, I should pay more attention to the first paragraph.