Discussions

nterezakis3898

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

LSAT · ⚖ Official January 2021 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread ⚖

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!

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q24

nterezakis3898

Monday, Jan 18 2021

That's why E is the correct answer choice. The argument gives an example that would be impossible (two setups of boxes, identical in appearance, where one is art and one is not) if the thesis is correct (appearance alone determines something is at).

PrepTests ·

PT152.S1.Q24

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)

PrepTests ·

PT149.S3.Q21

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.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q16

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

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q23

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.

PrepTests ·

PT101.S3.Q18

nterezakis3898

Tuesday, Jul 28 2020

Hey! So the stimulus says that despite employed people not buying new goods, they are not saving any more money than usual. WEIRD?

The argument uses this to conclude "if they aren't saving money than they must be spending it"

Assumption: The extra money they save by not buying new goods is going towards other purchases. But maybe people are gathering this extra money and hiding it at home.

AC A is correct because it says: people are not paying off debts at a higher amount than usual. This is a Blocking AC, because it protects the argument. We see how when it is negated below.

(negated) Employed people with debts are paying more to pay off their debts. It would mean "Hey people aren't spending the same amount like you thought, they are saving but its not going to their bank accounts. Instead people are paying off debt."

This wrecks the argument because people technically aren't spending the same amount of money. They're paying their debt. (which is going towards their negative savings/debt, so it is not really spending)

Hope this helps!

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q20

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.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q13

nterezakis3898

Friday, Jul 10 2020

This is just recognition of

a-->b

therefore, /a

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q13

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.

PrepTests ·

PT105.S2.Q7

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.