Discussions

petrak1618160

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

PT101.S2.Q25

petrak1618160

Thursday, Jul 11 2024

I had a similar train of thought. The only way for D to be wrong is that "possibility of acting as if true" is not synonymous with "/everyone knows it's not true." Thus, someone could still act as if it is true, even if they know the claim to be false.

Lessons · Quantifier “Few”

petrak1618160

Friday, May 03 2024

Some silent films have survived into the current century.

Some films that have survived into the current century are silent films.

PrepTests ·

PT120.S3.Q16

petrak1618160

Friday, May 03 2024

The argument: Because there are more instances of negative coverage of the opponent (reason), this news coverage reflects the reporters' biases toward the incumbent conclusion).

The conclusion is not convincing because the news coverage could be reasonable and unbiased, and the opponent happened to have more negative things for the news to report. (B) addresses this - the news coverage could be fair, and we can't assume that it's biased.

(C) says that the argument assumes that bias in reporting is bad, however there is no indication in the stimulus that any bias in the news is harmful or bad. Descriptively, (C) isn't what's happening in the stimulus.

LSAT · PT47.S1.Q2 - Disagreement

petrak1618160

Friday, May 03 2024

I overthink apparently easy questions too. I interpreted the first sentence more so as "Despite [attempts]..." so I don't think that the refuge needs to fulfill being part of a set of efforts. The AC could have said "Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of conservation centers," and it would still be correct. I think lol

PrepTests ·

PT117.S3.Q25

petrak1618160

Friday, May 03 2024

It's more broad than claiming one side is correct. All we know from that is that the perception is not accurate.

LSAT · PT47.S1.Q2 - Disagreement

petrak1618160

Friday, May 03 2024

Our aim is to weaken the relationship between the conclusion and the premises, even if it's just by a little bit, like in this question. The argument: Because their extinction rates continue to increase (reason), the efforts to protect the endangered's natural habitats was for nothing (conclusion). To weaken this, we need something that says that the efforts being completely wasted doesn't necessarily follow.

(B) shows that some species went against that trend of extinction, demonstrating a benefit that came out of these efforts. We don't need to completely negate the conclusion by saying that the 'efforts weren't wasted because natural habitats were restored.' All we need is to show that the efforts weren't completely wasted.

LSAT · Struggling to make the connection between the premises and the conclusion. Please help!

petrak1618160

Tuesday, Apr 23 2024

I struggled with this for a long time and still do. I've certainly not "mastered" this test, but I'll share what helped me break from 150s to 160s. Before, when I'd go over explanations by JY, PowerScore, LSATHacks, etc, I'd often react "how'd they get that from the stimulus?"

That's because, while I was good at identifying which sentences contained the conclusion and premises, I wasn't picking up on the key features of the argument. So the transition was going from "this sentence is the conclusion; these are the premises," for example, to:

The premises make a comparison between X and Y

The premises are descriptive, but the conclusion makes a prescriptive claim

The conclusion introduces a completely new concept that's not mentioned in the premises

Pointing out these things helps me anticipate what needs to be in the correct answer.

LSAT · Indicator words and identifying sufficent and necessary conditions

petrak1618160

Tuesday, Apr 23 2024

This video helped me look at conditionals another way that became more intuitive

General · LSAT meme contest - win free tutoring

petrak1618160

Thursday, Apr 18 2024

Study Groups · Study buddy in Dallas?

petrak1618160

Wednesday, Apr 10 2024

I'm down! I posted this a week ago. We can connect on discord if you're interested.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person

Discord: https://discord.com/invite/vtUaHu8E

General · Anyone studying in Dallas?

petrak1618160

Monday, Apr 01 2024

If you’re still looking for a study group in Dallas, check this out.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person

General · Anyone studying for the LSAT in Dallas?

petrak1618160

Sunday, Mar 31 2024

Hi Anna! I'm Petra, and I'm looking for a study group in Dallas too. I just posted a discussion - feel free to check it out, and see if it's a fit for you. While I'm taking the June LSAT, the focus of the group will be on LR and RC.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/37196/dallas-study-group-for-the-june-2024-lsat-with-160-scorers-in-person

Study Groups

•

Sunday, Mar 31 2024

petrak1618160

Dallas Study Group for the June 2024 LSAT with 160+ scorers (In Person)

🔢 I'm currently scoring: 160-165 (Goal: 170s)

📆 My planned test date: June 2024

📈 To study, I have been: Drilling untimed and timed

🔑 My goals for this group are: Each participant will teach and take away a strategical approach to a question type. Ideally participants in the group have completed the core curriculum and have a good grasp of the different question types in LR and RC.

🔍 We'll focus on: LR and RC

📚 When we'll meet and what we'll do: Everyone takes the same PT before meeting up. At study group, we will discuss the questions we missed, focusing on optimal strategies for each question type. This can be on a weekly or biweekly basis.

✅ How to join: Join the discord: https://discord.com/invite/vtUaHu8E

I think the study group will be more effective when everyone gets a chance to discuss, so I'd like to keep this group relatively small. A group of 3-4 is great, max is 6.

General · Question about notes

petrak1618160

Wednesday, Jan 10 2024

@yuezhuchen0721897 thank you! Would you want the table to contain only questions that you got wrong? Do you ever take notes on questions you got right?

I break down questions I got right and wrong and also use the table as "scratch paper" to break down questions untimed. I do all that in Excel.

General · Question about notes

petrak1618160

Saturday, Jan 06 2024

My LSAT notes are in Obsidian because of the easy-to-use subheaders that allow me to open and close subsections within a page. This is helpful for different LR question types and key takeaways by PTs. The side-by-side layout for the menu and page also makes switching between folders really easy. Some of my main folders in the menu are Question Types, Technique/Approach, Progress Tracker, PT Review, and subfolders of each LR question type to break down my analysis of actual LSAT questions. What I really wish it has is a table feature for a wrong answer log. Currently you can create a table, but it's cumbersome because you have to build it with html.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S3.Q14

petrak1618160

Thursday, Jan 04 2024

Examples in-and-of-themselves do not prove, rather they attempt to provide support. Sentence 3 further explains the premise in sentence 2, and sentence 2 explains sentence 1, making sentence 1 where we would find the implication for the conclusion. A conclusion needs to be supported by premises. You can test which one is the conclusion by asking yourself, 'does sentence 1 support sentence 3, or does sentence 3 support sentence 1?'

Study Groups · Study & Accountability Group for April 2024 LSAT

petrak1618160

Friday, Dec 29 2023

I'd like to join!

Lessons · The Contrapositive Argument - Andersen v. King County (2006)

petrak1618160

Wednesday, Dec 20 2023

The premise can also be read as “If the plaintiff qualifies as a suspect class, then the plaintiff must show that the characteristic is an immutable trait.” Also, “must” is a necessary condition indicator.

PrepTests ·

PT154.S1.Q20

petrak1618160

Wednesday, Dec 20 2023

A strengthens it the least out of the ACs.

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q12

petrak1618160

Wednesday, Dec 13 2023

I think it's the latter because "which were built to prevent soil erosion" modifies terraces.

So "there are soil erosion-preventing terraces" negates to "there are NO soil erosion-preventing terraces."

Lessons · You Try - Causes of Cultural Phenomena

petrak1618160

Tuesday, Dec 05 2023

That part can also be read as the following, which make its biconditional nature more obvious:

...a given PS is produced if and only if certain ECF exist.

...a given PS is produced only by certain ECF but not other factors.

Lessons · You Try - Rational Consumer Behavior

petrak1618160

Saturday, Dec 02 2023

I think you're on to something with negating the wrong thing. "Not" modifies "acquire" instead of "rational." This is the grammar parsing of the sentence:

Subject: not acquiring such information

Predicate: is rational

A sentence that conforms to your translation would read, "It is not rational to acquire..."

Lessons · You Try - Sacrificing Happiness for Money

petrak1618160

Friday, Dec 01 2023

Is this a valid breakdown and contrapositive of the prescriptive statements? #help

Argument

P: no health --> happiness unobtainable

C: should not sacrifice health for money

P --> C

If happiness is not obtainable without health, one should not sacrifice health for money.

/C --> /P

If one should sacrifice health for money, then happiness is obtainable without health.

(E): You should acquire money only if happiness is obtainable.

Lessons · You Try - Detecting the Existence of Aliens

petrak1618160

Thursday, Nov 30 2023

Even if you initially translated it that way, you wouldn't kick up to the premises "determine in near future" because it's the conclusion. It should prompt you to take the contrapositive of what you initially translated so that "/determine in near future" would be the conclusion and therefore the necessary condition in the argument.

Lessons · You Try - Increasing Highway Speed Limits (PSAr)

petrak1618160

Tuesday, Nov 28 2023

Consider this breakdown with reasoning:

Premise: changing speed limit to actual avg speed can reduce accident rate

(Reasoning: accident rates should be reduced)

Conclusion: speed limit should be changed to actual avg speed

Whether or not traffic laws are applied uniformly (B) doesn't concern the bridge/reasoning we need. Whether Texas and California apply traffic laws the same way doesn't influence the reason that the speed limit should be changed, for example. I can also see how if (B) is read quickly, it can be mistaken for an assumption that the argument is making and be a tempting answer that way.