Discussions

User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
PrepTests ·
PT103.S1.Q16
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Thursday, Jul 30 2020

B was super hard to understand at first, let me know if this makes sense to anyone else lol

AC B uses "there is more than one valid explanation for the dance of honeybees."

Henry never agrees that the explanation of the bees dancing to communicate IS valid. If anything, Henry denies it as a possible explanation, and says there must be something else (this something else could be one new valid explanation, or multiple who knows).

Additionally, Winifred argues there are multiple ways of doing a task, not that there are multiple explanations for a task. Winifred says bees navigate using the sun and memory. Scent can be used for communicating, why not dancing too? WINIFRED never implies the action (dancing) has multiple valid explanations (just the one, communicating). Therefore, she doesn't have an opinion on AC B

4
PrepTests ·
PT103.S1.Q23
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Thursday, Jul 30 2020

RRE

1 Cost plus: contractors profit as a fixed percentage of the contractors costs [50% of x+ x=total cost ]

2: fixed amount of profit separate from the cost [150+x= total cost]

X is material cost

1st method would benefit the most from exaggerating final costs compared to the original cost (inflating a 100$ job to 500$ for more money).

HOWEVER, it is more common for 2 to overrun costs

Contradiction: 1 should be exploiting system but 2 does. Why?

A. this focuses solely on fixed amount (2) ,we need 1 as well

B. general about both, doesn’t explain contradiction. Shows both might underestimate

C. If over runs are detectable early, why is 2 still overrunning the estimate

D. Correct. Tricky, I thought it was a general claim and skipped it but it does differentiate between the two. For projects with cost plus contracts (1 and 2) the client can review billings to make sure they aren’t being taken advantage of (inflating costs). HOWEVER they only do this when the contractors profit varies with cost. (This focuses solely on group 1, preventing them from taking advantage of the system. It also leaves group 2 more wiggle room to accidentally go over)

E. IGNORES THE ISSUE. Most common for group 2: exaggerate cost estimates to make their fixed profit appear modest. While this explains why they exaggerate cost estimates, it doesn’t explain why the final cost would be more than expected(overrun). IF anything it would end up costing less.

0
LSAT · ⚖ Official January 2021 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread ⚖
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Tuesday, Jan 19 2021

I had LG-LR-RC and the first three games of LG were straight forward but I realized that with my nerves I had miswritten a rule in the first game which had seven!7! questions. So with 8 min left to start my last game, which was very weird, I answered the first three of five questions, guessed on the last two and redid the first game. I usually go -1 for lg so this was a big hit but im hopping I made up for it with the other two sections. For anyone who hasn't taken the exam yet re-read your rules for the love of whatever you believe in. As for the other sections, LR felt very comfortable I only didn't have time for one question, and RC was dense with a lot of questions but doable. I was rushing for time but still had 8 min to do the last passage which had 7 questions. So make sure you pace yourself. Good luck!

0
PrepTests ·
PT152.S1.Q24
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Sunday, Jan 17 2021

How I deconstructed the question:

The two situations are identical in appearance (boxes), however one is considered art (Warhol's) and the other one is not.

Therefore the argument concludes (appearance alone determines something is art) is NOT true.

For me it looked like it mirrored a typical logic argument:

If Appearance alone determines what is art (A) --> then both boxes would be considered art or not considered art (B)

However this did not occur (/B)

Therefore Appearance alone does not determine art (/A)

1
PrepTests ·
PT106.S1.Q20
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Monday, Jul 13 2020

MBF

EW→ Prices Constant and UE rises (although used as an and. means you must separate the two)

EW→ PC

EW→ UE Rises→ Inv Decreases

/Inv Decreasing (therefore we need to check with the contrapositive of the lawgic) SO TRICKY

/Inv Dec→/UE→ /EW

PC is now floating because /Inv and /ew do not trigger /PC

A. /Inv D→ EW MBF CORRECT. Anytime the necessary is negated, the statement must be false

B. UE Rises→ PC. Sure, nothing negates this, could very well be true

C. /Inv. Dec.-->/EW yes this is true, in stimulus

D. /pc→ w we don’t know anything about /pc for sure because it was not triggered. Contrapositive of this /EW→pc. Still can’t say for sure if this is wrong because /EW doesn’t trigger anything.

1
General · Should I skip a section of the Core Curriculum to go to the Section I'm the Weakest in?
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Friday, Jun 12 2020

@ said:

I wouldn't. I am still working through the LG curriculum, but I find that JY references LR lessons a lot.

Thank You!

1
General · Should I skip a section of the Core Curriculum to go to the Section I'm the Weakest in?
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Thursday, Jun 11 2020

@ said:

not unless you're already scoring in the mid 170s

I'm definitely not scoring that lol.

Just to clarify I meant skipping the WHOLE of the LR section to start with the LG section where I am very weak, finishing it, and then going back to the start of the LR and continuing to take everything in order. I don't want to jump around within the sections themselves.

0

Hey guys! I started 7sage this week, and I'm planning to take the LSAT for the first time in October. The course hours are intimidating and a part of me is scared that I wont have enough time to get through all the lessons on each section. I know I have a couple of months to go, but does anyone recommend skipping over lets say the LR section (which is quite beefy) and going straight to the Logic Game section (the section I struggle the most with). I would obviously come back to complete the LR section, I just feel I am going to need more time to understand the LG games and don't want to leave it alone. Has anyone else started studying an other section out of order? Did you think it was fine skipping a section and comping back or did you wish you did it in order?

#help

2
PrepTests ·
PT103.S1.Q13
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Friday, Jul 10 2020

CLEAR NOW: MBF needs to show A denial of the necessary. Sufficient can be denied and not wreck the logic. Example: all cats are orange. Some cups are orange. Sufficient being denied here but doesn't matter. Some cats are green. This MUST BE FALSE. We just stated all cats are orange, there's no way both statements are right.

0
PrepTests ·
PT105.S2.Q7
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Wednesday, Jul 08 2020

"the crux of creativity resides in the ability to manufacture variations of a theme."

Can someone explain why it is creativity --> manufacturing variations on a theme. i know this is fairly simple, but when there isn't an indicator I get mixed up.

1
PrepTests ·
PT149.S3.Q21
User Avatar
nterezakis3898
Thursday, Jan 07 2021

I thought A meant that the subjects in the current study did not chose top only because they did not see a pattern. I assumed that was true because nobody in the group followed that top pattern; which we know because the subjects were wrong most of the time and based their answers on patterns they thought they saw (clearly they did not see a top patterns because then they would have been right most of the time). INSTEAD, the AC was really saying If any subject were to take the test it would be impossible for them have based it on a pattern that they thought they saw. This is way too strong. Maybe these subjects were too dumb to see an only top pattern, and there is somebody out there who would have seen the top pattern. We don't know and we can't conclude A from the stimulus.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?