Discussions

nadiaeugenejo339

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT107.S3.Q12

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Aug 31 2022

Yeah this is a bad question even though I got it right. POE only left B, but that answer choice is not really good either.

"Quite the contrary." and saying (implying) that Vierne's music IS religious could mean that he is indeed using a different standard / definition in order to designate something as "religious music." That's why the music critic said that for him, divinely inspired --> religious music.

The music critic didn't necessarily "confuse" two different meanings. The critic says, or could mean, "I disagree with those "some" people and I think Vierne's symphonies ARE religious because I have a different criterion for it."

PrepTests ·

PT135.S1.Q18

nadiaeugenejo339

Thursday, May 30 2024

I struggled with reviewing this question for literally 50 minutes, and now I finally think I got it.

The stimulus can be diagrammed as:

tried domesticating wild animals → [requires] seemed worth domesticating

contrapositive:

~~seemed worth domesticating~~ → ~~tried domesticating wild animals~~

in other words, if a wild species didn't seem worth domesticating, then old people didn't try.

The conclusion states that most wild large mammal species today are one of two things:

a) [old people tried domesticating, and] they are too hard;

b) didn't seem worth domesticating[, which means they didn't try domesticating.]

This conclusion leaves open the possibility that old people DID NOT TRY to domesticate some species. Which ones? They didn't try the ones that "didn't seem worth domesticating."

So, A is not necessary to assume. If you negate A, the negation becomes exactly what the conclusion implied is possible. (that old people didn't try to domesticate some wild species.) Negating A doesn't weaken or destroy the conclusion.

B, on the other hand, is necessary to assume. B is hard to understand by itself. It only becomes clear that it's NA when you negate.

If it IS much easier today to domesticate some wild animals than in the past, then the framework of the old times is not exhaustive or accurate enough for today. If it IS much easier today, then that implies there's a strong chance that some wild species today were hard in the past but easier today to domesticate, which implies there might be a third category of species that's not captured in the conclusion - the third category being, "hard in the past but not anymore." The current conclusion just says in a blanket statement that all the hard species in the past are still hard now.

For that conclusion to be true, B needs to be true.

PrepTests ·

PT129.S3.Q25

nadiaeugenejo339

Friday, Jul 29 2022

B is too strong. The manager/stimulus never saiid that familiarity is more important than flexibility. She didn't rank those qualities. She made a weak statement like "we shouldn't COMPLETELY abandon the old software" = "we should allow some people to keep using the old" = "the old software has some valid merits/reasons why people would want to keep it." The anecdote about "several other companies" having employees who still use old software seems to be relevant because D) "many" (there exist some) people would prefer to use the old.

PrepTests ·

PT104.S2.P2.Q10

nadiaeugenejo339

Friday, Jul 29 2022

Even for my second try at this passage (3 months after my first try), #10 is unsatisfying because E also seems attractive. It says The Council of Basel declared that canon lawyers violated papal constitutions and instructed Cardinal Cesarini to address the problem, which kindaaaa sounds like the beginning of enforcement.

But the passage doesn't say that a "system" was developed or these church authorities actually followed through on their threat. So C is better.

PrepTests ·

PT143.S3.Q21

nadiaeugenejo339

Monday, May 20 2024

For A: "very long time" can still be 2nd longest, 3rd longest, etc. There can be other countries who used it longer than Paraguay.

E is better because it directly connects with the line in the stimulus saying Paraguay uses mate MOST widely.

PrepTests ·

PT150.S4.P2.Q11

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Aug 17 2022

I took this PT on lawhub (so I had RC last) and this passage literally sent me into a mental breakdown and made me give up on finishing the rest of this section timed. Going to use other passages just as drill material. The evilness of this passage is that powerful. This passage being #2 is evil

PrepTests ·

PT147.S4.Q3

nadiaeugenejo339

Friday, May 17 2024

nah all of these ACs are bad. "Whenever possible" says NOTHING about the ACTUAL frequency at which Woodville houses only one patient. D is just talking about what Woodville COULD do if their ideal scenario happens (ideal: it's possible to house just 1 patient -> they do it and house just 1 patient in a semiprivate room)

It's totally possible that it's almost never possible to house just 1 person per room. That the opportunity never arises. Then this AC would not explain at all the surprising fact about Woodville having similar infection rates and stay lengths.

This question is just bad.

PrepTests ·

PT112.S1.Q23

nadiaeugenejo339

Tuesday, Aug 16 2022

How were we supposed to know that fire pits are used as sources of light. They sounded like sources of warmth, like people gather around it to stay warm or to cook things / make things -- maybe even make lamps -- so how can we tell "oh they were sources of light" given that there was no context at all about these fire pits? #help (Added by Admin)

PrepTests ·

PT141.S1.P3.Q21

nadiaeugenejo339

Sunday, Aug 14 2022

Q21: In the moment I thought this AC was convincing, but looking at the text it is blatantly wrong. I thought it was true that advertising companies have economic power over some consumers because consumers choose to buy their exploitative products. But the passage says that "most adults recognize and understand the techniques used and are not merely passive instruments" (Line 41). So they are not "unable or unwilling to distinguish" between real and false needs.

PrepTests ·

PT131.S3.Q24

nadiaeugenejo339

Thursday, Jan 12 2023

I was so convinced that "then current" was a typo and spent a solid 2 minutes trying to figure out wtf this stimulus meant. lol screw the LSAT writers. It means "the aesthetic theory that was current back then"

PrepTests ·

PT132.S1.P1.Q4

nadiaeugenejo339

Thursday, Aug 11 2022

Q4: B might be right, but the last sentence of this passage was incredibly misleading, and thus makes E an equally valid candidate, in my opinion. The test writers made a mistake by making the meaning deliberately ambiguous. I read several other LSAT forums' discussions about this question, and other people (including tutors) seem to agree.

There are two ideas (independent clauses) bound together by the conjunction "and."

1. "Sites must be selected to minimize the influence of the influence of snow avalanches..."

2. "Conditions like shade and wind that promote faster lichen growth must be factored in."

LSAT DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR if these are 2 SEPARATE ideas that happen to just be in the same sentence (which is the only interpretation that leads us to rule out E and solidly choose B) OR the 2nd idea is an extension and continuation of the "we need to filter out certain sites using X criteria" idea. I'm sure a lot of students went with the second route.

The LSAT wrote the last sentence like the 2nd clause is a cumulative addition on top of the "sites must be selected to minimize" clause. Yet, for #4 we were magically supposed to assume that that is wrong and B is right.

Not good!!

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q1

nadiaeugenejo339

Thursday, May 09 2024

I've gotten this question wrong twice over 2 years and I feel really stupid. I think I picked A both times. I think I was overthinking it. My prephrase for the answer was "bonobos somehow know there's something special about these leaves, so they knowingly eat it. So A talking about how they behave in a unique way towards these leaves made me think that's right...

I get that E confirms that there is a high chance that bonobos would be sick. But we're trying to explain why bonobos eat it. Wouldn't A be stronger because that suggests bonobos are deliberately eating this in a different way/frequency than other plants because they know the leaves have a special power?

Can anyone help?

General · Positivity Thread: Speak your desired LSAT score into existence!

nadiaeugenejo339

Friday, Sep 09 2022

I will get a 173 or higher on the September LSAT!

PrepTests ·

PT110.S4.P2.Q12

nadiaeugenejo339

Monday, Aug 08 2022

Really struggled with #12. I think the key is focusing on "PROOF." The idea that the individual is a free agent could have existed in Greece before A dramas... the A dramas simply show that Green civilization thought of the individual as a free agent. It helps us confirm that. A dramas didn't have to CAUSE that realization

Even as I type out this "explanation," I hate this question and "correct AC" lmao. I think it's completely bogus... hopefully recent RCs are not as bogus as this.

Another clue can be that A and B are basically identical, which can be the clue that neither is the right answer -- because we can't have two right answers.

PrepTests ·

PT151.S4.Q16

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Sep 07 2022

C requires a huge assumption. How do we know that landlords will actually act on their incentive to provide energy efficient appliances? Sure, we might expect them to do that – but that doesn't mean they actually do that! This is a huge logical flaw that commonly shows up on the LSAT.

I see some explanations say that the stimulus is currently assuming that the tenants are not currently conserving BECAUSE they don't have the financial incentive to conserve. The stimulus's invalid assumption = assuming that tenants are behaving consistently with incentives.

How can C be the correct answer, when C requires us to make that same invalid assumption?

#help

PrepTests ·

PT151.S4.Q15

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Sep 07 2022

For C, I thought the author was referring to himself. "the source of a cited claim maybe be biased and hence unreliable" --> he is citing his 3 cars to say they are not fuel efficient. This source (his own personal experience) is biased and unreliable. Someone being like "well in My eXpeRienCe with 3 cArs" clearly seems wrong because your experience is not the universal or a representative experience.

Why can't we have interpreted it that way?

I know that the LSAT likes using confusing and complicated referential phrasing, so I thought the phrase here referred to himself.

#help

General · Blind Review feels like an inefficient way to study (50% extra time, scoring ~170 right now)

nadiaeugenejo339

Sunday, Aug 07 2022

@ Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful comment. I updated my post to clarify that my goal score is 175+. So I made sure to read through your first paragraph multiple times.

I definitely realize that my lack of understanding is an issue. I'm especially lost on how to improve on RC. I get 1-2 questions wrong evenly on hard RC passages of any type (not just bombing science or something), but I do know the inference stem is my biggest weakness according to analytics. It's hard because the RC lessons in 7sage's CC are basically all case studies -- explanations for specific passages/questions. As opposed to LR and LG lessons which teach broad principles/strategies/techniques and tests with specific steps (like the 2-part flaw test... how to do grouping w/ chart games...)

Do you have advice for how to improve my understanding on RC? I do have a positive trend for LR, which is more assuring. RC tends to fluctuate between -6 and -4

General

•

Sunday, Aug 07 2022

nadiaeugenejo339

Blind Review feels like an inefficient way to study (50% extra time, scoring ~170 right now)

I'm 6 months into studying full-time, and I've been using 7Sage. My first LSAT sitting will be in September. My goal score is 175+.

I've hit 170 a few times and I got 50% extra time like 3 weeks ago. This has allowed me to spend a lot of time thinking about each question (3-5 minutes for the hardest questions on LR and RC).

I just don't get the point of Blind Review. It was pretty helpful when I studied with 35 min for each section. But now I feel like during the 53 min, I reach a point for every question where a) I'm between 2 ACs and I just have no idea which one is better – it's like a coin flip; b) I recognize that the problem itself is hard, but I am locked into my answer and no amount of time will make me change my opinion; c) I had no idea how to answer the question because the ACs were all unexpected (different from what I pre-phrased) or I can't find any clue to verify/reject the ACs (this happens for RC inference questions).

In conclusion, I reach a point during the test itself where more time wouldn't lead me to change my answer.

So Blind Review wouldn't lead me to change any of my answers.

It feels much better to find out what I got wrong and why I was so convinced that a wrong answer was right & the correct way to solve the problem.

Why spend 15 min agonizing over 1 problem, knowing that I am not confident in my approach, when I can literally just click on the explanation and find out why I'm wrong?

Please give me advice on how to improve! (LR and RC are the problems; I'm perfect on LG)

Please give advice while taking into account my explanation about why my 53 min/sections lead me to feel like it's the same as untimed Blind Review.

Lessons · You Try - Extrasensory Perception

nadiaeugenejo339

Saturday, Jan 07 2023

My eyes went so wide when I saw that B was wrong and also that 60% of people chose B

PrepTests ·

PT104.S4.Q25

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Sep 07 2022

I eliminated E because I thought the question stem was asking "which AC MUST be true?" But the stem simply said consistent with the facts in the stimulus.

I eliminated E because I thought "Well the PA could have told someone 70%, another 50%, another 30%... it could be unequal" so it didn't HAVE to be all 50%, 50%, 50%, etc.

But everyone knowing 50% is CONSISTENT with the stimulus -- it is a possibility.

Very hard nuance.

PrepTests ·

PT143.S3.Q10

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Sep 07 2022

#help

Still pretty unconvinced by C.

Conclusion: I believe there is good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in this case

Premise: If the defendant were completely innocent, the prosecutor would not have brought charges.

Contrapositive: The prosecutor brought charges, so it means the defendant is NOT completely innocent.

The contrapositive (the necessary part) is the conclusion. The author has an assumption -- a presupposition -- that the prosecutor will act a certain way depending on innocence/guilt. Isn't this circular reasoning?

I get that the author is still relying on the prosecutor's opinion, but it seems like B is also correct.

General · Room scan for writing exam

nadiaeugenejo339

Tuesday, Sep 06 2022

following

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q14

nadiaeugenejo339

Monday, May 06 2024

POE is so necessary for this question. B is not very satisfying but the other ACs are clearly wrong.

PrepTests ·

PT157.S3.Q4

nadiaeugenejo339

Wednesday, Jun 05 2024

I felt like B and E were equally valid, but ultimately I didn't like the caveat in E that he thought another camera would work better. So there was still something that didn't completely satisfy him about the camera. This suggests James did not get all the use that he intended to get.

General · Drilling Mode

nadiaeugenejo339

Tuesday, Aug 02 2022

what do we do if we want to use the old features, like being able to take any section / question? (what if we want to solve problems that we haven't seen before?)

Lessons · You Try - Business Class Tickets (W)

nadiaeugenejo339

Monday, Jan 02 2023

I was deciding in between C and D. I think the argument makes an assumption that leisure travelers value comfort. if they don't value comfort, airlines wouldn't have a reason to prioritize their comfort. So I thought C specified one way in which leisure travelers don't care about comfort. Why was this wrong?

#help