Does anyone know of a question that was actually based on circular reasoning? #help

Man I mapped this out correctly but still didn't really see it.

Fremont's unstated premise is: Success → Viable Candidate → Industry Background

Galindo mistakes Fremont's unstated premise to be: Industry Background → Viable Candidate → Success

Galindo goes onto say that you can have Industry Background and not have Success as if that disproves Fremont's argument... but it doesn't. It's perfectly aligned with it based on Fremont's unstated premise. If you satisfy the necessary (have Industry Background), the rest of the chain falls away (success no longer has a relationship with IB). So yea you can totally have IB + /S

But Galindo doesn't realize he is the fool here. He thinks that FREMONT thinks that if you have Industry Background it always implies Success... but again, not what Fremont assumes.

#6

The biggest reason why E is wrong is simply because the recommendation is to restructure the film. The author just spent 4 grueling paragraphs talking about why restructuring films has devastating effects on the film. Yes, the author does care about the intentions of the filmmaker, but there are other ways to achieve this for the Russian audience that the author would prefer. E seems to me like the extreme option that the author would only accept if there is no other way to do it.

C is far more supported because the author is less definitive in his opinion about subtitling. All he says about subtitling is that it may be incompetent, full of mistakes, used for censorship. I think you can infer that he has no problem with subtitling if it doesn't commit the above.

So if C and E were the two options presented to the author, he'd be like "well, I wish we didn't have to do this at all, but if we are going to modify this film for the Russian audience, I'd prefer we'd subtitle. But hire some real f*ckin Russian/Italian bi-linguists and pay them well so they don't screw it up. And don't tell Putin about this one - the film is not kind to him."

Man I got this right but I hated this question. They wrote this in such a way that tempts you to assume SOOO many things that it doesn't say. And all of the wrong answer choices are expecting you assume those things. Spent a lot of time pulling myself away from those assumptions before I got it right.

B - Maybe that's how the crows reacted in that situation, but it doesn't mean they always shriek and dive-bomb.

C - just completely irrelevant. Don't care about most species of other birds

D - It says "most crows" and the argument is about how traumatized crows can warn non-traumatized crows to be afraid.

E - Idk why we would need this. You don't need a mask to scare crwos.

I remember reading the stim and being like "shit I don't understand the flaw", while simultaneously thinking "wtf is this premise did the bartering start first or money start first."

And then it hit me. This guy is hoping I don't realize that he doesn't specify which system came first. Also learned from my last PT that presupposes = assumes. So yea, he assumes [that bartering came first] what he sets out to prove [that bartering came first].

Got this right during timed but I skipped it as soon as I saw it. Knew I was going to burn too much time and still had 5 questions to get through. Thankfully was able to move through those quickly and came back to spend almost 3 mins on this one lol. All about time management baby

This is the kind of question that makes my head spin. I was between C and E and chose C during timed basically on POE. Here's how I eliminated E.

The assumption that the author has in his head when making the argument is that:

If a species is the product of interbreeding → you would find a lot of similar DNA

Then you get to E and it says:

If you find a lot of similar DNA between two species → [the similarity] is a product of interbreeding.

Without clearly articulating the author's original assumption, E is a really good trap answer choice. Because you probably intuitively picked up on the author's assumption, but if you didn't articulate it before reading E.. easy to latch on to it even though it's backwards. It's kind of (?) a sufficiency/necessity confusion. But even beyond that there's another reason why E is wrong.

The author's argument is based on this idea of species 1 + species 2 interbred to make species 3, which shares similar DNA with 1 +2 and is part of the same ancestral lineage. E is missing that element of ancestry. It doesn't really specify how the two species are related. Are the two species in the same ancestral lineage? Or are we talking about dogs and snakes? Does it make sense to say that just because dogs and snakes have similar DNA that they have INTERBRED to make some sort of dog-snake species? Ridiculous.

So ok. Now I want to prove why C is right (yay for Blind Review). I took a similar approach to JY did but with venn diagrams instead of lines. The author's claim produces a venn diagram with Neanderthals and Humans having a very small overlap. I'm looking at that like ???? how can you possibly leap to the conclusion that Humans daddy isn't a Neanderthal, it just means they don't share a lot of DNA. But you have TWO parents, so like... maybe you just got Mama Sapiens DNA.

That's exactly where you land when you negate C. You get a venn diagram for Humans + Sapiens having a huge overlap (remember we're comparing to the first venn diagram). If Humans + Sapiens shared that much DNA, it just means that maybe Sapiens DNA was "stronger" than Neanderthals. Aka weakens the author's argument that interbreeding never happened.

It's basically like when a kid looks WAY more like the mom than the dad and you're like, "yea she definitely fked the milkman -- no way that kid is his". But nah, the kid just picked up more of her genes.

OMG this is the first time I've gotten these 180-score difficulty questions right.

@ - I am using Manhattan Prep's RC book. I've found it to be immensely helpful in articulating in concrete terms how to read RC passages.

I have been studying for the LSAT since September of 2019, working full-time all throughout. My job is pretty demanding and sometimes all-consuming (Legal department of a Fortune 50). Took my first LSAT Feb 2021, and plan to take again this June.

I study between 1-2.5 hours per day on weekdays (broken up between my mornings and evenings), PT on Saturday, and review Saturday/Sunday. My weekday studying may vary depending on how busy my work week is, but I always get my PT in. Thankfully, since COVID, I have been working from home so I don't lose time to a commute.

A typical week might look like this:

Monday morning (1hr) - Take a full, timed section of LG, and review

Monday evening (1hr) - Drill old games for practice, review

Tuesday morning (1.5hr): Take a full, timed section of LR, and review, making notes in my wrong answer journal

Tuesday evening (1hr): Read my RC textbook

Wednesday morning (1hr): Take a full, timed section of RC, and review

Wednesday evening: I don't usually study on Wednesday evenings.

Thursday morning (1-1.5hr): Take a full, timed section -- I decide whether it's LR/RC/LG depending on what I feel like I want to focus on

Thursday evening (1hr): Read my RC textbook

Friday: More often than not Fridays are a day off. If I'm up for it, I might drill some old logic games in the morning.

Saturday morning: Take a full Flex Practice Test

Saturday afternoon: Review (I used to Blind Review a few hours after my test, but I'm no longer getting a ton of value from BR.)

Sunday morning: If needed, finish reviewing

Sunday afternoon: Take an full, untimed LR section (usually the odd section from the PT I just took)

It can be really exhausting for sure. Some days I just don't have the energy to study after work or have to work late. This is why I plan to do my practice sections in the AM, and leave "lighter" work for the evening.

I'm motivated purely by the fact that this is what I want. I want to go to law school. Moreover, I want to go to a law school that sets my future self up in the best way possible. Whether that means going to a mid-tier school with scholarship or a T14. My focus is purely on the LSAT.

A few pieces of advice:

If it's an option for you, don't work towards a test date. Instead, work towards a score and register only when you are consistently scoring that way. Working towards a test date will probably stress you out more, and put you more at risk for burnout.

Take care of your body. Seriously. It sounds so trivial but it 100% affects your mental performance in every way. Eat healthy, cut alcohol out entirely or limit to a few drinks a week, and WORKOUT. Your accuracy, motivation, and comprehension will all benefit from that.

PLAN breaks for yourself. Burnout is real. Spending all day working and studying is tiresome. I emphasize planning them because if you don't anticipate that you will need a break, you probably won't make time for it. This is easier to do if you are also doing #1. Your brain needs time to digest all the learning. It's the same as building in rest days to a workout routine.

This might be redundant but it deserves to be called out explicitly. Be flexible in your study schedule. There may be days that work absolutely destroyed you and you just can't bear to study. Don't study. Take the night off. Watch your fave TV show, cook a good meal, do what you need to do. You can wake up a little earlier the next day and do that night's studying the next morning.

Good luck! You are not alone.

Edited to add: Although I have been studying for over a year and half, there were a few months at the beginning of last year that I was not studying at all (COVID, new job, lost my dad to cancer). I also don't think that the studying I was doing at the beginning of this journey was all that effective. I actually think I've made the most progress only in the last few months. I say this only to emphasize that it's really all about the quality of your studying, not the quantity.

I'm scoring between 163-168 but want to score consistently 168+. I would be new to discord but would love to join!

D allows you to infer that none of the police dramas that W&W produced last year were popular. This establishes a precedent of failure. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

As such, W&W has to be insane to think that producing MORE police dramas this year is going to result in a popular show, considering their past failures in this department. This strengthens the conclusion that their police shows this year are ALSO LIKELY to be cancelled.

Here's my synopsis of why A is right.

A says: /Suggest Something Illegal → /NEED Legal Protection

Compared to the premise that says: Suggest Illegal → disclaimer OFFERS no legal protection

If company isn't telling anyone to do anything illegal, then company isn't advocating any violation of tax code provisions (disclaimer), so company isn't exposing itself to legal risk, so company doesn't NEED legal protection, which implies that the disclaimer has nothing else to OFFER to the company, and therefore the disclaimer serves no purpose.

I chose C on timed and during BR, but I now see why it's not a weakening AC.

The conclusion of the argument is that it is LIKELY that the artist who painted the self-portrait also painted the battle scene. What are we basing this conclusion on?

1) There's a painting of Leo painted by Leo

2) There's a battle scene with a guy that looks like Leo

3) The two paintings were dated in the same year

C says that it was not uncommon for Renaissance painters to use live models in their paintings. In choosing this AC, I figured this meant that maybe Leo was the live model while someone else was the painter -- certainly a plausible alternative explanation.

But does that alone weaken LIKELIHOOD that Leo was the painter for both? No, you could argue that with C it is equally as likely to be Leo or not Leo. I really think the key word in the conclusion is LIKELY. If the conclusion said that it WAS the same painter, then I think C does weaken.

Am I crazy or is every correct PF AC A

This might be an indirect answer to your question but here goes. For me it's less about the size of the city and more about accessibility to the community. Whether I end up in Big Law, In-House, non-profit, or a small private practice, I don't want to feel like I'm up in my ivory tower living my lawyer life doing lawyer things with all my lawyer friends. I just want to be a member of my community who happens to be a lawyer.

I think feeling part of a community is easier to do in small to mid-size cities like Cleveland, Philly, St. Louis. Definitely not impossible in cities like NYC or Chicago, just... requires intention. I've got my eyes on schools in both types of cities so I guess we'll see where life takes me.

The question asks us to MOST justify. It doesn't need to make the argument perfect. Putting the context of the stimulus into the ACs it reads like this:

A - The legislation should not be commended because the program benefits are felt by well to do professionals even though the program was supposed to help long term residents. Not only are they not helped but they are HURT by the legislation. Yup that sounds right.

C - The legislation should not be commended because the legislation (tax incentives and zoning variances) was supposed to apply all members of the city, including well to do professionals and long term residents. Ehhhh this isn't the problem with the legislation. Not only do we not have the specific information about who the law applies to but it's not even saying that one group of people had a leg up in accessing the tax incentives or zoning regulations.

This is actually a great example of what it means to make a reasonable assumption. JY kind of touches on this at the end when describing the three logical worlds where other schools either push their schedules forward (earlier than 8am), do nothing (stays at 8am), or push their schedules back (later than 8am).

If you assume they push forward, AC E is a weakening AC. If you assume they push back, AC E is a strengthening AC. These two assumptions are MATERIAL assumptions. In other words, they are BIASED assumptions that you can make purely to serve your purposes. You can't just assume something so that you get to prove your point. Put it this way, if the only options you had to was to assume that other schools could be to push forward or push back, you would change which one you assume based on whether this was a strengthening or weakening AC. This makes them material assumptions.

So if you can't make a material assumption, you're left with assuming the other schools do nothing which IMO is a reasonable assumption since the argument introduces the results at Gainesville as a premise but mentions no other school. Other schools doing nothing gives you a control group.

Man -- this is just a cookie cutter whole-to-part question. We're taking the mood of the whole of Twitter to be the same as one Tweeter's mood.

I love the advice to "hold onto the discomfort" with an AC. It's a great way to put a pause on that whole thought loop before it convinces you that the AC is wrong. With that distance, then you can compare the imperfection of E with the imperfection of C and it's so much easier to evaluate right v wrong.

A one-star question but it took me a while to see what was going on. I made an assumption that in the experiment both LS and HS people were treated disrespectfully which it doesn't actually say. I went into the questions thinking that HS people are just immune to perceiving disrespect. Knew that was cray cray so I noped out of this question and came back to recognize my error.

This is the stuff that makes the 70s/80s LR so much more difficult -- nuances with wording + highly tempting assumptions.

I got this right but I didn't really understand why A was correct. Just goes to show why POE is so important. You don't need to know why 1 is right, just why 4 others are wrong.

I was so confident about A because I thought denying the statement (A→B) meant you just had to show that you can have B and /A. But it's the opposite... you have to show A and /B.

I don't think I fully proofed what it meant to deny a conditional statement so this was a helpful lesson. If A is the sufficient condition and you satisfy it then, if the statement (A→B) was true, you would HAVE to have B. So proving that there exists one possibility that A happens and B does not follow destroys the conditional relationship: either A and B have no relationship to each other or they have an intersectional one (e.g., some/most). I haphazardly assumed that satisfying the necessary had that effect, but that is not the case. If you have B and /A, the statement (A→B) could still be true. Because there are any number of other sufficient conditions pointing to B that could have been the trigger and A could still be one of them

omg I read Espinoza saying "because she cares more about it THAN her taxes not increasing"

There was a similar MC question on another PT. It comes down to the fact that both are ACs are expressed in the stim, but one doesn't quite capture the full story.

My strategy for handling this kind of MC question is to imagine the following scenario:

- You and an overly sensitive friend are having a conversation.

- At some point, you zone out while your friend is talking.

- Your sensitive friend notices this and says, "dude, are you EVEN LISTENING TO ME?"

- Trying to save yourself from another one of these arguments, you say, "yes of course, you were talking about [insert one of the ACs you're deciding between]

- If your friend's response to you is, "....well yes AND THEN??????" then that AC is wrong

- If your friend's response to you is, "oh, uh yea, that's exactly what I was saying. anyway so...." then that AC is right.

I know it seems ridiculous. I have no idea why putting the stimulus/AC into this context makes this so much easier for me to eliminate the wrong AC, but it does.