Discussions

User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT155.S2.Q7
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Monday, Dec 23 2024

This is such a terrible question because if the other 51% were fighting, we could just then conclude that the pups also didn't accompany fighting, which doesn't affect the argument at all.

2
PrepTests ·
PT157.S3.Q18
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Monday, Sep 30 2024

same lol this question isn't even that hard. i wish they would bold and capitalise the except or something

1
PrepTests ·
PT115.S2.Q16
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Sep 25 2024

AC E is basically word vomit. Two reasons why AC E is wrong, IMO.

First, the biologists do indeed argue that a match between lungfish/coelacanth and frog material will ensure that human beings will be descended from one of the fish. But, there is no evidence that the author of the stim believes either of these hypotheses. The author is simply reporting that biologists disagree about which species of fish humans are descended from, citing an example of said disagreement ("Stevens-Hoyt claims" vs "Grover claims"). The author does not argue in favor of either theory. We really don't know if the author thinks that either hypothesis would confirm that human beings evolved from one of the two species.

Second, the more glaring issue, is that AC E also did not match the comparison correctly. AC E talks about a match "between lungfish and coelacanths". But is this what the stimulus was comparing? No, the stimulus was comparing matches between frogs and coelacanths or frogs and lungfish.

0
PrepTests ·
PT115.S2.Q13
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Sep 25 2024

A lot of people are saying here that it's a big assumption in AC E to assume that Jenkins is even aware of the health risks. An "aware" reading will swing AC E concretely to be correct. However, AC C appears to require an equally big of an assumption. If an assumption is made that Lurano believes funding will not be wasted if research is done in Apr/May, AC C is correct.

This is where JY's reasoning comes in. AC C actually requires a further assumption, that Jenkins' "if we wait until a later month, we risk sending researchers when they will be unable to to carry out research successfully" turns into a guarantee that funding will be wasted if research is carried out after Feb. Jenkins just says it's likely that money will be wasted, not that money will be wasted. What if the research is conducted March 1st or March 2nd? Jenkins is silent on if it will be wasted or won't be wasted.

AC E, on the other hand, requires only one assumption. We know Lurano's position because he explicitly disagrees with Jenkins' conclusion, arguing that it is better to conduct research later, prioritizing safety over economics. For Lurano, research funding considerations do not outweigh the risk to researchers. For AC E to be right, we only need to assume that Jenkins is aware of the risk to researchers. For AC C to be right, however, we need to assume both positions, which makes it the thoroughly less supported answer.

3
PrepTests ·
PT118.S1.Q20
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Monday, Sep 16 2024

look at this question from the viewpoint of a weakening question. plug in AC C: "historians recognize their prejudices and compensate with methodologies." this does not weaken the reviewer's conclusion that despite the the historians' purported to objectivity, there is physical proof that historians have subjective prejudices, and thus the historians are not objective as they claim. AC C here strengthens the idea that that historians think of themselves as objective; however, this is already accounted for by the reviewer. we already know historians think of themselves to be objective. AC C makes them... supposedly more objective? this is why AC C is not relevant to the argument itself.

in contrast, plug in AC D in weakening form: "some historical work that embodies prejudices is not written by historians who purport to be objective". well, then this just shows that some of the historians in the first group did not write any of the histories containing prejudices. then, the conclusion no longer is "we clearly cannot accept these claims of objectivity," because we can at least accept some of these claims of objectivity.

0
PrepTests ·
PT144.S4.Q23
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Friday, Sep 13 2024

it's not C because it's saying the time per pickup would decrease under a weekly program. a logical assumption here would be that less time = less cost. however, the problem is that even if time per pickup decreases, we're effectively getting double the amount of pickups. so even if time per pickup decreases, the total amount of time dedicated to pickups in total could increase, and thus, the weekly program would not be more cost effective than the biweekly program.

example: under the biweekly program, a pickup takes 5 minutes. under the weekly program, a pickup takes 3 minutes. the longer the pickup, the more it will cost. but over the course of two weeks, where one pickup only took 5 minutes two pickups now take 6 minutes. the weekly program turns out to be more expensive, thereby strengthening the conclusion that the biweekly program is more cost effective.

0
PrepTests ·
PT146.S4.P4.Q23
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Tuesday, Sep 10 2024

The passage doesn't explicitly say that chlorine is the most damaging element but it's very strongly suggested by the fact A) it is the only element that is discussed at length by the author of the passage (besides ozone) and B) that the research done by the scientists identified chlorine as a constituent element from their study of freon gases.

I think, as the reader, it's reasonable to assume that, in arguing for a point, the author would want to make the strongest point available with the strongest evidence. If there were a more damaging element than chlorine, the researchers would have discovered the more damaging element and the author would put emphasis on it in place of chlorine.

Of course, at the end of the day, this is still an assumption and isn't perfect, but the other answer choices can be completely disproven through the passage.

2
PrepTests ·
PT151.S3.Q24
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Thursday, Sep 05 2024

The conclusion in the stimulus uses correlative language: more likely. AC E is simply descriptively inaccurate. There is no causal relationship indicated by either the conclusion or the premises.

2
PrepTests ·
PT131.S3.Q19
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Monday, Sep 02 2024

snowflake

17
PrepTests ·
PT146.S4.P2.Q11
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Aug 28 2024

Could someone please explain why AC D is wrong on Q11? As many people have pointed out below Tanuskin explicitly states that high art was produced by and for elites in the first paragraph. Even if he doesn't explicitly state that high art was produced by the middle class wouldn't this point be accommodated for from the fact that AC D says "aristocratic OR middle classes"?

1
PrepTests ·
PT146.S4.P2.Q11
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Aug 28 2024

#help I did the same thing too

0
User Avatar
•

Tuesday, Aug 27 2024

nathanguo321999

PT78.S4.Q11 - Could someone help me out here?

Could someone help me out here?

The stem reads "The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?" I'm having trouble understanding why AC D is wrong here. I selected AC D because in lines 6-7 Taruskin explicitly states that high art was produced by and for elites. JY's reasoning as to why AC D is incorrect is just that Taruskin never mentions that the artists are themselves part of the elite class but this just doesn't seem to be true? I get why AC C is right. Does this question hinge on the use of the word suggests in the stem? That it can't be explicitly stated but must instead be implied? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

0
General · Not displaying comments under the explanation videos
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Tuesday, Aug 27 2024

hi Agnes, I'm also having this issue. could you please help me too? thank you

0
PrepTests ·
PT138.S4.Q10
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Sunday, Aug 18 2024

feels like in another situation you would be penalized for assuming a petition signature is a piece of testimony

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q20
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Aug 14 2024

I think (D) requires you to look at the process of glutamate release as a whole. If we take "glutamate leaking from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells" as a process that causes long term brain damage, what (D) does is that it guards against alternative processes that can release glutamate into the bloodstream.

If there's another way to release glutamate into the bloodstream, eg. glutamate is released into blood from malfunctioning muscle cells, this possibility makes it so that the process mentioned in the stimulus isn't the only source of glutamate. Thus, there is an alternate process that can produce the same glutamate that causes brain damage, thereby providing an alternate cause. (D) defends against this alternate cause by indicating that glutamate is the result of only one process, the process mentioned in the conclusion.

0
PrepTests ·
PT132.S4.Q22
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Wednesday, Jul 31 2024

the first point is such a great point, just because the #children/family decreases, doesn't mean family size decreases as well. it could very well be that the average number of children per family has decreased but the average size of a family has increased, thereby creating a situation where the correlation is undermined and ultimately weakening the argument

0
PrepTests ·
PT103.S1.Q10
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Friday, Jun 14 2024

i think there is an implication that because the conclusion details that it is a national level election, there will be people who can't watch the speech in person (nor live on TV) and will have to rely on news media. still got this question wrong tho

0
PrepTests ·
PT126.S1.Q7
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Friday, Dec 29 2023

#help

I predicted an answer choice similar to AC A but thought that it was iffy because of the phrase "as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery." I thought, what if unprotected machinery isn't the cause of the industries at all; what if these workers are suffering chemical burns from spills and such?

Am I just overthinking this question too hard? Or am I missing a fundamental way to approach these correlation-causation questions?

0
Study Groups · January 2024 LSAT
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Thursday, Oct 19 2023

interested!

0
PrepTests ·
PT138.S3.Q20
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Friday, Oct 06 2023

I reasoned AC A as incorrect by first separating the argument into Event A and Event B. Event A is human colonisation, and attached to it, the likelihood of Event A. Event B is getting born in the time period of human colonisation, and attached to it in the same sense, the likelihood of Event B.

The argument more or less states that because we are not born (Event B) in the era of space colonisation (Event A), then colonisation probably doesn't happen.

AC A proposes that because Event A has not occurred (human colonisation), then Event A is unlikely to occur. If human colonisation has not occurred, then human colonisation is unlikely to occur. Very close to the argument but not quite.

AC D incorporates this separation. It rephrases that because Event B (born during human colonisation era) is likely upon the occurrence of Event A (human colonisation), then event A is unlikely to occur.

IDK, this is just how I reasoned.

5
Lessons · Affirming the Necessary Condition
User Avatar
nathanguo321999
Friday, Sep 01 2023

Count Dooku was once a Jedi :(

5

Confirm action

Are you sure?