Discussions

User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Joined
Aug 2025
Subscription
Live
PrepTests ·
PT141.S3.P2.Q12
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Nov 05 2025

I did not pick E because I thought it could be saying they were not influenced by Caribbean cultures, not that there are also ones other than Caribbean cultures.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S1.P4.Q26
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Nov 05 2025

Idk the way I read this was that Paragraph 1 of Passage B was in relation to the the principle of justice in transfer violations, and paragraph two was like the historical basis of this decision, that being the principle of rectification. That made me think "well then how would this be prevention if it already occurred, this seems like the outcome of the principle of rectification" so that lead me to pick E as implementation of rectification.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S2.Q24
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Nov 05 2025

@CathyYao You have it mistaken. The key is to explain why that even if they are dissatisfied with X, they are opposed to tearing down X.

Think of it as like "yeah I think that building is ugly but I do not want it to be torn down".

What you are saying is these people want to tear down the building but they are opposed to tearing down the building.

This should get you at least to choice B and E and then B is incorrect because it is the opinions of most people who attend the concerts, not just the people who live near the concerts.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S2.Q20
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Nov 05 2025

What I did to get it correct:

1) I treated the Causal Statements in the beginning as if they were Conditional Statements. This led me to seeing that each thing was mentioned both in the conclusion and premises other than "Green-manure" which was just in the premise.

2) Crossed out every answer with no mention of "green manure or alfalfa" (C and D) then crossed off B because it didn't link anything.

3) Turned A and E into conditionals and negated both which showed E to destroy the argument

4
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q26
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

@paigebarsukov876 You are overlooking the idea that these are also a form of Most Strongly Supports. NOT a Must be True. Small assumptions or potential faults are ok in these question types as long as you can draw them from the argument.

Yes it MBT that that they believe At least some Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists contributions (and that would preferably be what the choice is phrased as) but since this is MSS it does not HAVE to be 100% true, just able to relate to what they may actually believe.

On the other hand for we do not know anything about their comparison to OTHER Nobel Prizes. If anything the answer choice might be correct if it said "the rules should be changed in general", but they in no way allude that only the rules should change for science and be different from all other areas. If you really look, they are arguing with the rules in general, they are not arguing that the rules should change only for them.

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q22
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

I ultimately picked D over C when comparing because. If people who already were highly motivated did not report a difference, there is still participants who reported an increase showing that it is very probable that it at least motivated one person which just matches the conclusion that it can motivate.

This however does not change the fact that D is a terrible terrible Weakener whoever wrote this hates people.

2
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q16
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

At the end of the day I was stuck between A and B and chose A. The reason I did this was solely because the conclusion is about dark roasts compared to lighter roasts, and only A mentions both.

But B is very tempting and I still do not completely understand why it is wrong.

I guess this is one of the perks for noticing LSAT patterns in correct answer to pick between two!

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q15
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

@dedolence C is saying that every single person has a different health problem so they all have different dietary needs. However it is not shown to be true or implied that no two people have the same health problem. (Even though it is however shown or implied that no two people have the same dietary needs Regardless the falsity of one factor of C makes it all false.)

D on the other hand follows the logic of the argument. Most fad diets prescribe a single range of nutrients but also no two dietary needs are the same. So this suggests that at least one person out there would not benefit from the diets.

(Yes there is a potential caveat that that varied diets may as well all actually be covered by the diet, however the point of Most Strongly Supported is not that of a Must Be True (small assumptions are ok)

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S2.Q13
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Edited Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

The reasoning in A makes no sense and contradicts the reasoning in C.

Just because it CAN effectively be controlled by hand washing does not mean that hand washing was the case. This requires the assumption that it what connected to the public health campaign and not because of something else such people making sure their food is cooked properly or even that a separate campaign was in place for food-borne illnesses that inspired hand washing. This is the exact reasoning why C is explained to be wrong.

C makes more sense to me because it actually shows evidence that there was less public gatherings compared to the assumption there was more hand washing. The reasoning it is wrong is literally that "Yeah this could work but it requires an assumption that it wasn't caused by something else, we cannot jump to either of those conclusion"

This threw me for a loop because I thought both A and C could be wrong for these reasons but the others were way more wrong and I had to pick one.

2
PrepTests ·
PT113.S4.Q17
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Nov 04 2025

Im confused by this one because if we treat this like a NA question then negating must completely destroy the argument, however I feel like negating E weakens the argument, not destroys, which is a big thing I go off of when choosing answers for NA.

Just because it was abnormally high the year before does not destroy the argument that speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. I understand the assumption that maybe it just went back to normal after a weird year but that "maybe" does not destroy.

So do I have my approach to NA in general wrong or am I wrong to assume that just because we use the idea of NA for this flaw question, it needs to destroy not just weaken

3
PrepTests ·
PT152.S4.Q7
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Thursday, Oct 30 2025

I initially got tripped up by this question because, like most questions that trip me up, I read too much into it.

B was ambiguous to me because:

1) how am I supposed to know that "Certain Medical Therapies" does not include Weight bearing exercise? As someone who has done a lot of Physical Therapy before (which is a medical therapy) weight bearing exercise can definitely be included thus supporting the argument.

2) Medical therapies that do not involve special diets does not inherently mean that one can not also be doing a special diet... Just like how it says both exercise and dieting are essential we wouldn't assume that these things are two things that go together... Would it be a wrong answer choice if it said "Certain weight-bering exercises that do not involve special diets can be effective means of preventing osteoporosis?"

The only reason why I got this correct is because A feels like it barely strengthens by barely eliminating a weakener, that being that "weightless exercise can also work" so weight bearing exercise is not essential?

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P3.Q19
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Oct 29 2025

I do not understand the reasoning for why C is wrong for Question 19. The passage states "that of gender offers an analytical framework within which to analyze social and political structures" and that one of the forms of the new work (aka the shift to more gender) "shaped culture and politics".

In my opinion a better way of saying why C is wrong is that C states that passage B illustrates a "current trend" when B does no such thing. The only reference of this is the last few words of B "making the present look like the idealized past" but this I feel refers more to the goals back in the Augustan-period, not a trend today.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S4.Q26
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Tuesday, Oct 28 2025

So for C, a correct answer choice for NA will NEVER be correct if it uses information from the past to try and rationalize something for the present?

AC C was what I was predicting the answer to be because I assumed that it would be necessary that "the dead bodies of the creatures will not wreak ecological havoc" and C says "if they have not been able to survive in that habitat, then they have rarely if ever wreaked ecological havoc.

Negating this is that in the past, having dead bodies of sea animals actually HAS caused ecological disasters.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q15
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Monday, Oct 27 2025

Initially got tripped up because I thought that "If they do no not" meant "If opposition responds negatively" and that a SA would be that "If they show a desire then opposition will respond" so then we could trigger the outcomes of responding either positively or negatively.

HOWEVER I forgot that "Not responding positively" means doing anything other than responding positively, that also meaning not responding at all.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q8
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Monday, Oct 27 2025

I got this correct but initially I was super confused because of the "Should" statement in the conclusion. I was under the assumption that if a conclusion includes "should" and the premises do not, then a correct answer to a PSA and SA question must have a value statement. I guess this isn't always the case though?

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S3.Q24
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Saturday, Oct 25 2025

So C means that the reason we have more reports is because all of the reports have been because of small tornados. I still do NOT see how this supports the claim the number of tornadoes have not actually increased. In my opinion it does nothing to the argument.

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S3.Q17
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Saturday, Oct 25 2025

I got this correct but I was very wary because I did not know if "compensatory" meant what I was trying to show. when they said they raised the prices and then gave a $0.25 discount, in no way does that mean they raised the price to the point where it was at least $0.50 extra so they still receive $0.25 unless "a compensatory amount" means they actually did raise it to at least 50 cents more

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S3.Q13
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Saturday, Oct 25 2025

I took E to mean "If you are a Physical Phenomenon then you CAN be explained by P C or N" not that you "must be explained". My interpretation leaves it open for other things to explain a physical phenomenon. I guess my question is how can you tell the "can be explained by" meant "must be explained by" 

1
PrepTests ·
PT131.S3.Q23
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Friday, Oct 24 2025

@DannySmall This is exactly why I eliminated it too. I do not understand how there is an implicit 2nd defintion... Guarantee you a lot of people got this correct because they did not read into the plurality. This is the question where I close my computer for the night.

2
PrepTests ·
PT122.S1.Q22
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Friday, Oct 24 2025

And how am I supposed to get this question correct if I have no idea what impunity means? After giving up on picking an answer I looked up the definition and immediately got it correct

1
PrepTests ·
PT150.S3.Q10
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Thursday, Oct 23 2025

@7Sage Tutor This is a very long way of explaining that Just because the washing machines can not be used to kill bacteria any longer, doesn't mean a dryer machine can not be used to kill bacteria. (Something im assuming slipped a lot of peoples mind, including mine, is that the argument mentioned a different machine. I thought "well theres no way for Hospital staff to use the machines to at a high temp because it says that the machines that can do it are no longer available")

1
PrepTests ·
PT119.S3.Q17
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Thursday, Oct 23 2025

If the negation of more likely is "not more likely" doesn't that mean either equal or less likely? So isnt the negation of "not more likely" either just as likely or less?

2
LSAT · Flaw Type: Unrepresentative Sample
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Thursday, Oct 23 2025

Also for a weaken question would a correct answer to "In a survey 60% of participants said yes and 40% said no. This shows more people believe yes than no" be an answer that then applies a specific trait to the survey size? Like if an answer choice said "The survey was conducted of only minors" then we would have reason to believe it is not representative of the broader population because it introduces that nuance needed for it to be flawed?

1
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Oct 23 2025

nathanbrowny2

🙃 Confused

Flaw Type: Unrepresentative Sample

I came across a question that said something along the lines of "In a survey 60% of participants said yes and 40% said no" and the conclusion was "This shows more people believe yes than no" (Granted the question was much more nuanced and another flaw was present but thats besides the point of my question).

One of the ACs said "They draw a conclusion about the population in general based on only a sample of the population"

Even though I got this question correct because I saw the other flaw in the argument, the AC above was wrong which confused me because the explanation why it was wrong specifically said "there is nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion from a sample. What would be flawed is relying on an unrepresentative sample".

Does this mean that if it said "We surveyed NYC, here are the results, therefore more people say yes than no" would be correct? or is it incorrect because it included information regarding the sample. In the question above there was no information regarding how the survey was conducted or who was a part of it but, they still made a generalization of the population from whatever sample they surveyed.

1
General · Flaws about Samples
User Avatar
nathanbrowny2
Wednesday, Oct 22 2025

@vivi Starts with "A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials"

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?