Discussions

nihalk1262

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT122.S1.Q23

nihalk1262

Sunday, Mar 28 2021

This is one of the few times that I spent a decent amount of time trying to analyze the argument, but it just wouldn’t make sense no matter how I tried to understand it. Eventually, I crossed out the last three answer choices, and was left with A and B. I picked A, because there was an instance of a “can” premise and “cannot” conclusion. There’s an”often” in A, which is neutral unless proven “most” or “some.”

Admissions · What are my chances to get in to a T14?

nihalk1262

Thursday, Sep 26 2019

@ said:

Okay so without an LSAT score, even the concept of "chances" is nonexistent. You need an official LSAT score to start talking about chances at any law school.

Thanks Regis. That's where my priorities are at right now. My diagnostics are in the low 160s. My initial practice test was in the 140s, so I've improved. I'm hoping to improve it towards a 170 before January, though if not, I have another 6-8 months before applying for Fall 2021.

Hence, my original post is obviously contingent upon doing extraordinary on the LSAT 🙂.

Admissions · What are my chances to get in to a T14?

nihalk1262

Thursday, Sep 26 2019

@ said:

I think the best thing to emphasize your recent academic success and the obstacles you faced in undergrad is to get a high LSAT score. You can look at the various mylsn users with sub 3.0 gpas and high LSATs and see what their outcomes were. Polish your story behind your decision to pursue law school and make sure you really want this. Authenticity will help you craft a compelling personal statement. The LSAT score would tie everything together, and could potentially get you into one of the lower T14 schools. People do get into lower T14 schools with sub 3.0 gpas, but it is rare. Never rule anything out because your story is unique, but realize that there are a ton of amazing law schools outside of the T14 that are much less of a reach. If it's T14 or bust before you've even taken the LSAT it may not be the right decision.

Thanks Dr. Brown. So one of my eventually goals is to get into academia down the line. Though I don't believe I'm in a T14 or bust mindset, lacking a place in academia isn't something I want to forego.

Admissions

•

Thursday, Sep 26 2019

nihalk1262

What are my chances to get in to a T14?

Hey everyone, could use your advice about what my chances for a T14 school look like.

I have a BA in Psychology from a meh school w/ a 2.7 GPA (graduated 2014). GPA is low because of personal issues, family issues, and financial problems. Ended up working 11 different jobs during undergrad. I then moved to India for three years where i did a second BA in Islamic Law and Theology, where I graduated in the 1st division. In 2019, I graduated with a MA in Religious Studies (3.7 gpa) where my dissertation intersected on mental health, religion, law, and ethics. I am also fluent in reading and writing Urdu and Arabic. The program also allowed me to study at Harvard Divinity School, where my professor also had a law school appointment, and agreed to write me a recommendation. I'm also a community activist that was recently accepted to a fellowship in Germany and Poland to study the ethics that allowed the Holocaust to occur. I'm currently finishing up the PowerScore books and will be taking practice tests by next week hopefully. But...

Despite all of this, my grades from undergrad still haunt me. I know there's 5-6 years between undergrad and the time I apply, I still need some advice and affirmation as to whether I have a shot at a T14 school? How about YSH/Chicago/Columbia? Thanks.

PrepTests ·

PT119.S2.Q24

nihalk1262

Friday, Mar 26 2021

I thought “first society” meant first in between the Egyptians and Babylonians. But it was in reference to ALL societies! The argument says that Egyptians were the FIRST to make alcohol. Why? Because a cup was found with a pic of a brewery and some alcohol in it in 2000 BC. The Babylonians were known to have fermented wine in 1500 BC. The Egyptians could have been before the Babylonians, but there’s no proof to say they were the first!

Be aware of relative increases and decreases. See 60.1.15 for a similar question.

PrepTests ·

PT127.S1.Q25

nihalk1262

Friday, Feb 26 2021

In this Q, keep in mind that the SC is negated. Not C → O, AND, Not H → Cacti. The CP is Not O → C, AND, Not Cacti → H. Therefore, in most of the country, if it’s not cold, it’s growing oranges; OR, if it’s not humid, it’s growing cacti. Anything that goes against the above inference will be the correct Must be False answer.

A is right. If MOST of the country is humid or cold, how can half be both? Some can be humid, or some can be cold. But if there’s a half, it’s even and excludes the “most.” Hence, A is the Must be False answer.

B: Sure, why not? Idk what grows if most of the country is hot. All I know what in most parts of the country, it’s either NOT humid or NOT cold. Maybe most of the country is hot, and that’s hot oranges grow better. Beats me.

C: Sure, why not?

D: CBT in some of the country.

E: Why not? Maybe if most of the country isn’t cold, it’s humid?

PrepTests ·

PT124.S2.Q10

nihalk1262

Thursday, Feb 25 2021

The “speed reading” portion is just excess information. The correct answer is A, because SR is just a monkey wrench in the stimulus and answer. If some who FC are not AAI, then that contradicts the stimulus. SR being the SC is irrelevant to the conditional statement occurring. What matters is that the NC happening (AAI) when FC occurs. A says that when FC occurs (and no one cares if SR occurs, cuz it is quantified by “usually, and FC is quantified by “always”) than AAI DOESN’T occur. Hence, it’s correct MBF answer.

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q20

nihalk1262

Saturday, Apr 24 2021

This is a very difficult question. It concluded that correlation equals causation. Hence, it’s highly unlikely that’s the case. I have to find an answer choice that either breaks or weakens the link between the gene variant and impulsive behavior.

I picked C, but on closer inspection, children are not the thrill seekers in this stimulus. Hence, this answer is a red herring. The main point where the weakness lies is in the research of the scientist. We accept that the research indicates a connection, but is that connection true necessarily? Answer choice B if it's true , says that impulsive behavior is like any other behavior . And if it's like any other behavior, and you can't distinguish it, then how can you draw any correlation from it? This answer choice implicitly brings the data set into question, and should be the focus of the weakness. Make sure to examine data sets and bring their soundness into question in a weaken question!

PrepTests ·

PT118.S3.Q24

nihalk1262

Monday, Feb 22 2021

Simple answer y'all: know that "generally/usually/probably" are synonyms of "most." That's it!

PrepTests ·

PT122.S1.Q16

nihalk1262

Wednesday, Apr 21 2021

I'm surprised this was a 3 on the difficulty scale. I found it to be a 4-5 easily.

This was one of the more difficult questions that I have gone through. I got this question wrong twice because I was not understanding where the conclusion of this argument was in. The conclusion was that the price of rice grains increased because the government distributes most, and makes available only some for the free market.

So, I need to find an answer choice that will create a gap between the availability of rice and the increase in price. I need to find an answer that will show that the correlation b/w availability of rice and price increase can be pushed further apart.

A) this explains what happens after the price increase but doesn't weaken the link between price increase and rice availability

B) this does not speak to the link between price increase and rice availability

C) this works. Because the stimulus says that government locally distributes the rice, so it's not available to be sold. But if the government is making the locally distributable rice available for purchase in free grain markets, and the argument is slightly weakened

D) and? This explains something about the government grains, not anything about weakening link between rice availability and higher costs

E) So? this doesn't tell us about the weakening link between rice availability and price increase.

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q18

nihalk1262

Sunday, Feb 21 2021

It was all about understanding the some arrows!

PrepTests ·

PT116.S3.Q23

nihalk1262

Saturday, Feb 20 2021

I mistakenly thought the conclusion was the latter part of the argument after “thus.” But this was a trick question. The second “this” makes everything before it ONE entire conclusion! It’s as simple as that.

Keep this in mind:

1) The “thus” is a subsidiary conclusion. Therefore, it’s not the main conclusion. C was the trap answer here, and I picked it.

2) The first “this” would mean that A would be the right answer. But the second “this” negates it.

3) The only answer that takes into account both “this(es)” is B. Hence, it’s the right answer.

PrepTests ·

PT113.S4.Q17

nihalk1262

Friday, Mar 19 2021

This question’s right answer was E. It was calling out a causation error. Ellen Cassidy in her Loophole book mentioned that there are 3 types of causation errors: 1) Backwards relationship 2) No relationship 3) Something else caused both variables. In this question, the answer is that we are assuming nothing else could have affected either element in this argument. Here, the author is assuming that nothing else caused the high number of fatalities in the first place. If it did, the outlier can’t really be explained by speed limits. There could be an entirely different reason as to why the fatalities were high. I also recommend reading Manhattan Prep’s Kobe Bryant example:

“One night, Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in a basketball game (though his average is about 30 points per game). If he scored 30 points the following night, we could say that he scored fewer points than he did the previous game.

Say he wore a new pair of shoes for the 30 point game. Would we say, "Ah, clearly wearing a new pair of shoes can decrease how many points Kobe scores"?

We could, but we could also just say "the new shoes didn't do anything wrong. This is an average, normal game. It's the 81 point game that needs an explanation. THIS game doesn't need one."

That's the way that (E) is hurting the argument. You wouldn't give new speed limits "causal credit" if the fatality number came back to average.”

PrepTests ·

PT113.S4.Q16

nihalk1262

Friday, Mar 19 2021

The issue I had is that I couldn’t name the flaw here. Most are saying it’s part-to-whole, but I think it’s something else. The argument is that because emotions vary between people, the connoisseurs can’t be trusted.What if they can be trusted? And if they have agreement between each other, that would push back against random people giving their opinion.

PrepTests ·

PT112.S3.Q25

nihalk1262

Friday, Mar 19 2021

The stimulus mentions a conditional statement. Another premise fails the conditional, so it’s out. Now we have a conclusion that says the ONLY way D got popular was from innate dispositions of the human mind. The failed conditional is being used to confuse us, but it’s irrelevant now. Before, D was the NC in the failed conditional. In the conclusion, it’s the SC. So, if SC, then ONLY this NC. But, why? Why can’t there be more than one NC? Even better--why is this the only reason attributed? The flaw is False Choice. Why is there only one option? Why can’t there be others? That’s how I’m looking at this. Next time, make sure to specifically identify the flaw. I got this question wrong because my brain was reading ACs and saying “yeah, that’s true actually!” Don’t do what I did.

PrepTests ·

PT126.S1.Q21

nihalk1262

Wednesday, Mar 17 2021

#help Can someone direct me to the lesson in JY's syllabus on how he does the "equation format" of the premises and conclusion?

PrepTests ·

PT120.S1.Q24

nihalk1262

Wednesday, Mar 17 2021

The first thing I did was translate the stimulus. Here's what I came up with: "It should be easier to assemble a product with the manual then without it." This is a bare bones translation. I translated in my head as I was reading the stimulus.

Then I translated the question stem, "Which answer choice contradicts the stimulus?"

A) Sure, the difficulty could have been lessened. But it doesn't contradict the stimulus.

B) Out of scope

C) Perfect. The stimulus said that the manual should be written so that MOST customers would find it easier to assemble than without the manual. But this AC is saying that most people can easily assemble the product w/o the manual. So if this is true, there's no need for a manual!

D) That's great, who cares?

E) This doesn't contradict the stimulus. It can very much so conform to it.

PrepTests ·

PT142.S1.Q2

nihalk1262

Tuesday, Dec 15 2020

This question has a bias--which is that you're expected to know that a Parthenon is a Greek structure. I did not know that--hence, this question requires outside knowledge. I've never been to Greece. It's the equivalent of expecting someone with no knowledge of West African Islamic architecture to know what a zawiyah is.

I picked C the first time by chance, then picked D in BR. I picked D because I thought that maybe the columns being scalable at the Didyma is proof that the columns were similarly scaled at the Parthenon.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q25

nihalk1262

Sunday, Dec 13 2020

*If you include the quotation --> you accurately cited --> found the book --> research paper will be better

If ~~the research paper is better~~ → ~~find the book~~ → ~~able to accurately cite~~ → ~~include quotation~~.

Find an answer that meet the above criteria.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q22

nihalk1262

Friday, Dec 11 2020

The easiest way to approach this problem for me is very simple. It's a confusing question-- but if the only thing to do is strengthen the hypothesis that 'each sockeye salmon population has adapted genetically to its distinct habitat,' then isn't A a straight forward answer? Because, the genetic adaptations must have happened for no other reasons except the habitat. But wait, did we say that the native salmon were decreasing--but they weren't COMPLETELY gone? If so, then it must be true that the native fish have not intermixed with the sockeye salmon. Or else, it would mean that there would be another cause of its genetic adaptation. So, to strengthen the hypothesis, we must be sure that no other reason has caused the genetic adaptation.

If I'm being too simplistic, feel free to let me know.

PrepTests ·

PT141.S2.Q20

nihalk1262

Friday, Dec 11 2020

PT 73, S2, #20

After BR, watching the 7Sage video, and reading explanations from LSAT Hacks, PowerScore, and Manhattan prep, here is the summary I came up with. Feel free to correct me if my conditional language is off. And if I’m completely off, feel free to chew me out:

P: Chemical fertilizers (CF) led farmers to stop growing green manure crops (GMC) to rejuvenate its soil.

P: The premise above caused soil structure to be poor (PSS) in that certain region

(All we know right now is that [If farmers ~~GMC~~, → they were using CF → PSS].

The contrapositive of the above statement is [If ~~PSS~~ → CF → GMC].

C: If you want to better soil structure (~~PSS~~), farmers need to stop chemical fertilizers (CF). [If ~~PSS~~, CF].

Logically, we've worked out the above. The missing part is that If CF, → GMC. So, I need to find an answer that says that if chemical fertilizers are not used, then farmers can grow manure crops. But, keep this in mind:

- We don't know if chemical fertilizers are actually hurting the soil. Just that not growing green manure crops is causing poor soil quality. Assuming that the chemical fertilizers are causing the poor soil structure is a trap thought, so be careful of that. I know I messed up on this the first time!

- Focus on what the farmers are doing.

- Answer A: Seemed like a weak and weird answer. It didn't seem to fill in the assumption gap at all to me. It did not reflect the conditional language that I had worked out above.

- Answer B: I picked this in BR. Later realized that the fertilizer was never applied to the green manure crops! The green manure crops were stopped when the fertilizer started to be used!

- Answer C: I picked this the first time, but realized that it's out of scope and a trick answer. "Soil quality" affecting "soil structure" is not a talking point! This is a necessary assumption question--and this assumption is not necessary for the argument to hold!

- Answer D: The fertilizers may have a destructive effect on the soil structure, sure. So let's remove them. Great! Now at the bare minimum, the soil structure isn't being harmed. But it's not being improved either. So, it may strengthen the conclusion, but it is not an answer that is strong enough to be a necessary assumption in the argument.

- Answer E: If farmers abandon using CF, many farmers will grow GMC [If CF, → GMC]. Great, this is the part we're missing that I mentioned above.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q6

nihalk1262

Wednesday, Feb 10 2021

Focus on the word “normally” instead of “rapidly.” In my mind, I thought that “rapidly” would be the focus here. The negation does not apply to the facts as much as it applies to the provable language. Here, the word “normally/usually” negates to “not-normally/unusually”.

This question has 3 chains:

1) If ship sank in usual manner, ship ~fully flood. The CP would be, if FF, not Usual (unusual).

2) If FF, then Sabotage. CP would be If not Sabotage, then not FF.

3) Usual sinkage + no FF, then implodes. CP: not I, then either unusual sinkage or FF. According to the facts, the ship either imploded or was sabotaged. If it FF, then Sabotage. If not Sabotage, then not FF. If not FF, then it imploded. Keep that in mind and don't forget to combine the conditional chains.

PrepTests ·

PT131.S3.Q21

nihalk1262

Tuesday, Mar 09 2021

I picked C. I did an answer choice reset and leaned towards C because it had more words. E seemed too simple. C says that if the designers saw a possibility of something in the future, then they would not have done something. Maybe, or maybe not. It can’t be deduced from the stimulus. So, we can’t conclude that possibility at all.

E was right. B/c If the keyboard was designed for computers, it probably wouldn’t have been designed to limit speed. Limiting speed was done so to stop the keys from jamming on a typewriter. On a computer, the issue of keys jamming isn’t there, so why bother doing something worrying about jammed keys? That’s only for typewriters. Hence, E is the most strongly supported. It’s like 95% correct.

PrepTests ·

PT117.S2.Q14

nihalk1262

Tuesday, Mar 09 2021

I misunderstood the conditionals and focused too much on the excess info in the diagram. I misunderstood the second question as a conditional and got it wrong.

The only conditional statement in this Q is the first line. The second line of “consistent” just means that both things can coexist. There is no other conditional relationship. The statement is a negative correlation.

Study Groups · Study Group + Accountability partners for April 2021 LSAT

nihalk1262

Monday, Nov 02 2020

Hi! I'm interested in joining. I took the LSAT in August and didn't do as well as I thought. Currently registered for January, but will also be taking it in April.