Self-study
Hey guys, ALL the videos crap out on me a couple mins in. I'm using Chrome. Help!
PT Questions
pkwl465
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
pkwl465
Tuesday, Dec 16 2014
Skip the bibles- straight to sage.
pkwl465
Monday, Dec 15 2014
A few months into studying I was driving and saw a license plate. My first thought was, "No, no! T can't be next to V."
pkwl465
Sunday, Dec 07 2014
Thanks, syn_101. So are the December questions harder? Or does Dec attract a lower raw-scoring cohort? Ha, I'm sure there's a correlation/causation question in here somewhere ;)
pkwl465
Sunday, Dec 07 2014
Agreed! So grateful for 7Sage.
pkwl465
Thursday, Nov 27 2014
I interpret (C) to mean that he has committed the error of affirming the consequent. The original argument is: If you have an apple or a banana, you have a fruit. So, affirming the consequent would be: If you have a fruit, you have an apple or a banana? (And therefore, no banana must mean I have an apple?)
I guess what I'm saying is: Doesn't choice (C) mean that he has affirmed the consequent?
(And conversely, to indicate another flaw, they could say, "...takes for granted that an assumption sufficient to establish an argument's conclusion is necessary to establish that conclusion" to mean that he has denied the antecedent?")
pkwl465
Tuesday, Nov 25 2014
Can someone explain why (C) is wrong? Isn't (C) just a re-wording of the principle described in (B)?
pkwl465
Sunday, Sep 14 2014
I like your comment about divorcing the content and just abstracting. I shorthanded mine like this:
A> /B
We want B
_
Therefore C
...so the missing premise is: C> B
pkwl465
Wednesday, Aug 27 2014
Regarding maryisaac's question about valid application of relativity, here's an example question:
magic shoes> run fast (it would be a mistake to infer that /magic shoes> /run fast
yet...
magic shoes> run faster (it would be correct to infer /magic shoes> /run faster)
ie, the presence of relativity in the second statement allows us to properly deny the antecedent
The way I wrapped my head around this one was to realize that relativity creates a binary world that a "regular conditional" does not necessarily do.
pkwl465
Thursday, Nov 21 2013
(D) is clearly correct though I thought (E) could be correct as well, depending on the meaning of "or" (inclusive or exclusive). It could be true that "Spirit is indivisible" although it is NOT true that "the Spirit is imperfect."
pkwl465
Saturday, Nov 09 2013
Hey JY you said that if (D) said "IN as large as female" (rather than what it does say, "larger than those of the average male..."), then choice (D) would be a contender because it would attack the premise. ie, weaken the correlation between male IN size and disease X.
But I think the conclusion itself wouldn't be weakened by that hypothetical (tweaked) (D) because the conclusion reads "...size of IN determines whether or not male cats can contract disease X" NOT "...do contract disease X." ie, maybe female-sized IN in males is necessary but not suffficient.
That's how I ruled out (D).
pkwl465
Wednesday, Nov 06 2013
I think Steven is asking where he can find the PT games sections themselves, not JY's video explanations. Steven, if I understand correctly, PTs are proprietary materials owned by LSAC. You can find a rare few for free by snooping around online, but mostly you have to purchase them (either from LSAC directly or via a third party, eg, a course such as this one). That's why the questions themselves aren't printed in JY's video explanations.
7sage is definitely the best course out here, so I'd recommend purchasing a membership- you'll get the PTs bundled in!
pkwl465
Monday, Nov 04 2013
Just in case we weren't all crushing on JY enough already...
pkwl465
Wednesday, Oct 30 2013
I'm really impressed by the generosity of those who are revealing their scores. Such disclosure is helpful to us fellow students who are following behind you. Thank you.
pkwl465
Tuesday, Oct 29 2013
Thanks, JY, for saying that you're not entirely sure that the premise supports the conclusion in the stimulus. That was seriously bothering me...I think a better conclusion would be that the values are *changed,* not *undermined.*
pkwl465
Monday, Oct 28 2013
Could you make a case for (A)? Here's my reasoning: What effect does lack of exercise have on aging? It allows it (doesn't slow process). What effect does taking a drug have on aging? It allows it (doesn't slow process). So aren't these the same?
pkwl465
Friday, Oct 25 2013
In my BR, I explained my reasoning (out loud to myself heh) by saying, "(D) is incorrect because it is an alternate conclusion that the author could have reached, but did not.
pkwl465
Friday, Oct 25 2013
Hi, Eleanah,
I initially wrote off the first sentence as context simply because it uses the classic context indicator "Many people (artists)"... So then I was looking for one premise and one conclusion within the remaining 2 sentences.
But it wouldn't work! Of the remaining 2 sentences, neither could be used as support for the other. In fact, for a brief moment, I actually thought, "LSAC's so stupid, this is not an argument at all, but rather a fact set." Yes I just said that. Clearly I'm feeling secure enough in this forum to type that. :s
When I clued in, I was forced to consider the first sentence again as either premise or conclusion, and I realized that it was indeed the conclusion (and last sentence is the premise). ie, Because using art solely to (represent external objects) is an ironic waste, many artists are mistaken when they think that their models need only be external.
As a side note, I see the phrase "Although human sensibility can confer beauty upon even the most vulgar external objects..." as context.
This one was tricky- don't get discouraged!
pkwl465
Friday, Oct 25 2013
We could also mention that the last sentence is a sub-conclusion (following the sentence immediately before it). ie, (Because) Reason plays an essential role in any moral behavior, (Therefore) Only behavior that is intended to be in accordance...can be considered moral behavior.
Marie- this is so inspiring! Thank you for posting.