Subscription pricing
Woohooo
PT Questions
punmeetj99
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
punmeetj99
Thursday, Apr 29 2021
punmeetj99
Monday, Apr 26 2021
Some questions to ponder about:
What is your current approach to weaken/strengthen questions?
Is the struggle during timed questions, BR questions or both?
I would try re-reviewing the premise/conclusion lesson - this is where I would start and see if this helps. If it does, then move on to re-reviewing support/assumption lessons.
Struggle is real, but so is success. :smile:
punmeetj99
Sunday, Sep 26 2021
D: mayor will agree to tax ^ b/c that’s only how CC will agree to her proposal, which is her top priority.
E: mayor won’t get her proposal as its more imp to her that taxes don’t ^.
a. She will agree to increase. This is a contention btw them
b. Only way CC will agree to proposal is if she agrees to increase. Makes sense. D declares this and E implicitly concurs by discussing if proposal will pass rather than saying that D's criteria for proposal's passing is wrong.
c. Proposal = top priority. The issue of priorities is also point of contention btw them.
d. Mayor won’t get her proposal. This is what E says, D doesn't really say this.
e. More imp btw taxes and proposal = not increasing taxes. This is also what E brings up, D does not.
punmeetj99
Monday, Jul 26 2021
Stim summary:
Int does not mean W and W does not mean Int.
People I meet = W or Int, but not both.
Q stem: MBT Except - choose 4 correct answer choices.
AC Analysis:
a. Is it possible that most people in the world = neither W not Int. _Maybe...there could be people outside author's circle who are not W nor Int._
b. Is it possible that most people in the world = both W and Int. Same as above with the exception that most could be in both categories. "Most people" in AC A and B are keywords to catch.
c. Is it possible that not any person in the world= both W and Int. Very plausible with author's statements above. Author has not met anyone who is both W and Int, so this is plausible. "Not any person" and "Both" are the keywords here.
d. Is it possible that not any person in the world = either W or Int. Odd because the author's circle has people that are W or Int (not both). So, how can this world be possible? "Not any person" and "Either Or" are keywords here.
e. Is it possible that many people = Int but not W. Ofcorse, completely consistent. There could be people are Int and not W and people who are W and not Int.
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Aug 25 2021
The skills you learn from studying/PT'ing for LSAT are useful in everyday life, so they definitely will be useful in law school.
It is a skill to call out flaws (Ad hom, etc.). It is hilarious to say "not necessarily" to every thing you hear, ask for facts and not beliefs. Practising these skills has really spiced up my life. :smiley:
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
a. Degree of difficulty re making CM = good index of degree of difficulty re performing task. Good index? Huh?
b. Better we understand C’s ability re performing task, better we’ll understand our own ability to perform it. I think it is the other way around. Also, understand C’s ability? Stop it, haha.
c. C defeating chess champion should = indicator that C has true intelligence. Wow! I mean sure but not in this world. True intelligence was not introduced, stop making me giggle.
d. Less difficult to make CM process = better understood that process. Makes sense. So, reasoning tasks easier to make as we understand analytical capabilities of our mind better.
e. Shouldn’t underestimate usefulness of CM re study of human cog. I mean, What?! Cool, CM is great but where is that in the stim?
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
a. Mortgage lenders less likely to consider other risk factors when assessing credit scores. Other factors, aha! Don’t just look at the scores, think of other factors - look deeper! Don’t just look at the number of the score. Imagine the high scorers are high scorers b/c they had employment at the time but now their industry is facing depression and they are about to lose job? Think of other things, dude!
b. Credit scores reported = based on data sometimes have errors/erase relevant info. aha! so what you think is highest score could actually not be highest score but I feel that is negating a premise.
c. Credit score in part based on past history re paying off debts in full/on time. So this is what scores are based on in part. Does nothing for me.
d. For most, mortgage = much larger than other loans. Okay? Larger means what? What does this do? nothing!
e. Most potential borrowers = scores neither very high/nor very low. okay, that is cool, we are appealing to group size. I feel like you are almost there but did not nail it home with the group size argument. Eliminate the word “potential” from the sentence and you may have nailed it home.
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
*SCQ -> GA6
ACQ -> GA7
so,
If SCQ -> GA6, which means /GA7 -> /ACQ.
If ACQ -> GA7, which means /GA6 -> /SCQ.*
a. If GA /6 then ACQ. Wrong direction.
b. If /SCQ then ACQ. Wrong direction.
c. If GA6 then SCQ. Wrong direction.
d. If GA /7 then SCQ. Wrong direction.
e. If SCQ then /ACQ. Right direction.
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
a. Highest point will exceed alt of 5km. Will it? How do we know this? What if it does not?
b. LD can be detected in some regions where WR not available. Makes sense, data can be helpful where WR does not exist. Makes sense.
c. WR no less accurate in assessing alt of ash cloud than assessing alt of reg cloud. Reg clouds are not in scope.
d. Ash cloud exceeding 5km likely at least partly beyond reach of WR. So, we are now negating a premise.
e. LD no more frequent re large ash cloud than smaller ash cloud. What? Where did the comparative btw these 2 come in from? Stop it!
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
a. Fails to justify presumption that F’s objection based on personal bias. What personal bias?
b. Fails to diff btw relevant/irrelevant experience. I think this concept was not even touched on. Its not about relevancy, its about limitation that F was placing on the applicant’s consideration. Relevance is not discussed.
c. Confuses characteristic necessary for success w-characteristic sufficient for success. Chosen due to POE but makes sense as F says to be candidate -> need BE whereas G says BE should = success/candidacy and that didn't happen w-previous exec. You silly goose, G.
d. Bases conclusion on characteristic = always irrelevant re success on proof that it is sometimes irrelevant re success. So basis conclusion on background experience as always irrelevant on proof that it is sometimes (previous CEO’s experience) not relevant to success. I do not know where relevance comes in play. Its not about being relevant though. Its about limitations re experience. Stop trying to make me like the concept of relevance!!!
e. Presents only 1 ex of a thing as basis for broad generalization re that thing. Huh? What broad generalization?
punmeetj99
Friday, Sep 24 2021
a. B’s arg = quite unreasonable. If they were unreasonable then how is the performance on the same level as R’s? “as good as”
b. R’s arg more reasonable than B’s. Makes sense after POE.
c. Good debate perf = very reasonable args. I mean okay, but that is not introduced in the stimulus. Its about R and B.
d. Neither R nor B in full command of facts. I think B was in command and full command is lang not introduced. What is full command?.
e. Winning requires good command of facts. Winning? Its not about winning. Its about performance eval. Winning is not a concept introduced. Also requires? How would I know what winning requires?
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Jun 23 2021
@, here is my quick analysis:
Rephrased stimulus to my own words:
In motorcycle accidents = head injury = most serious. Med care non-helmeted = 2X avg cost to taxpayers than helmeted. Areas with helmet laws = reduction in incidence and severity of accidents = reduced cost to tax payers. So, for similar cost reductions, other areas should enact helmet laws. Areas should also require helmets for HSBR. HSBR = more likely to cause serious head injury than motorcycles.
So, I’m looking for enactment and requirement are the same thing. I’m looking for enactment/requirement is not more expensive than med care costs. I’m looking for HSBR is like motorcycle accidents. I’m looking for HSBR costs taxpayers.
a. Med care for victim of HSB drains tax funds - BOOM.
b. Higher rate of serious head injury suffered by HSB is due to diff in size btw horses and motorcycles. Rate of injury is not an issue. Also, how do I really know this about sizes? This is asking me to measure and what not.
c. Med costs of treating head injuries are higher than other injuries. Great, how do I know this? I know nothing about other injuries except that motorcycle head injuries cost taxpayers more than other injuries. But I don’t know about head injuries in general. Don’t try to draw comparisons where comparisons don’t exist and don’t appeal to my beliefs, answer choice c!
d. Most fatalities from HSB and motorcycle could be prevented if victims wore helmets. I mean that is great but how do I know enactment/requirement = enforcement and compliance? You are only giving me half the picture.
e. When enacting helmet laws, area’s primary concern is safety of citizens. Primary? The stimulus tells me that we should reduce costs and now you tell me the primary reason.
punmeetj99
Friday, Jul 23 2021
Reach out to old colleagues and see if they can help.
I agree with comments above that you may just need to reach out to old profs/mentors and/or become part of some community organization where you can get a referral.
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Aug 18 2021
I ran out of time by the time I got to this question but during blind review my methodology was pretty basic. Hope it helps some. :)
Stim: taxes on specific items tend to protect small % of pop working in org making the item. Said taxes hurt others via high cost. Polls = most people oppose said taxes. So, if politicians voted against said taxes, politicians more likely to be re-elected.
As this is a necessary assumption question, the task is to add strength to the argument on a granular level. As I am running down the answer choices I am looking for what would make it more likely for said politicians to be re-elected? Would it be that supporters may vote for said politician? Would it be that people opposing taxes may vote for such politicians? Would it be that people outside the opposing taxes group would vote for them too?
Remember voting and re-election are the issues
A. Supporters of taxes not more likely than opposition to base vote on politician’s stand. I chose this by way of process of elimination. BUT breakdown of this answer choice means a lot of things: supporters not more likely to vote on basis of politician's stand could = that they might just vote for the anti-tax politician, which makes my conclusion likely. I stopped here in my thought process b/c my task was to make re-election for such politician more likely and I have given it some support, so I am confidently moving on to next question.
B. Politician always vote according to what is most likely to get them re-elected. What politicians always vote for is not in scope, I do not know politician's motivations.
C. Politicians should support general taxes as such taxes more widely pop than taxes on particular items. What politicians should or should not do is not in scope either, I cannot make recommendations. Also, popularity scale is out of scope.
D. Politicians should never support laws that favor only small % of pop. Wow! Once again I cannot make recommendation on what politicians should or should not do. I simply need support for my argument that they will be more likely re-elected if supported anti-tax on such items.
E. People hurt by tax generally know that they would be hurt. People's knowledge is not in question, whether they know or do not know is cool and does not help the argument in any way.
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Jul 14 2021
So, is it possible that there could be 2 LG? fingers crossed
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Aug 11 2021
@ said:
Yeah, it was really weird, but I remember earlier on in my PT phase when I was on an up-streak with my PT scores (incrementally increasing in the low- to mid-160s with each PT), I remember about 3 or 4 PTs in having what felt like a panic attack, but I'm not sure if it was entirely that. I felt short of breath and was on the verge of tears, it was so strange! I think in retrospect, I feared nearing or having already reached my ceiling and that I had no where to go but where I already was or down.
I remember that day so vividly, because the fear I felt left such an impression on me. What I remembered doing after that--I was just about to take another PT, but decided I definitely could not--was going outside and having a long walk out in town in the broad sunlight with my husband and expressing these feelings to him, a person I trust. After coming back, I had calmed down a whole lot and enough to brave the PT I'd left behind. I wound up getting the highest score to date on that PT, and of course I was elated, but I think my biggest victory was in realizing that I don't have to allow my worries box me in with panic or inaction. I can accept that I feel worried, yet I can ground myself by remembering that if I can learn from whatever I miss or spend too much time trying to figure out or get right for the wrong reason(s)... well, then, my time has been redeemed, and I'll know what to work on next! If I perfectly execute everything, what have I got to do between now and the REAL test? Twiddle my fingers? Lol
This is why internalizing, really internalizing the truth that the PT is a rough measure of where I am now, not where I have to end up (if it turns out to be a 'bad' test day), nor necessarily what I'll score on test day has helped me tons.
Whatever happens, you deserve self-love, not self-loathing, and a low or mid-range or high PT (or actual!) test score relative to where you're scoring is NOT going to change that fact. Embrace the value of the PT, but at the same time, remember that it is not an end itself, but a path to progress, and your mistakes, however many or few you make, are there to help you along this journey.
This is really helpful, thank you. I have been dealing with this since some weeks now. I'm almost crying (even panicking) every time I start PT's. I dread PT days and trying to keep my motivation up has been really difficult.
I used to go for walks to clear my mind but recently felt that I have to prep so much more for PT days, so I skipped out on my walks. :neutral: Need to get back to this.
punmeetj99
Friday, Apr 09 2021
@, Interested!
@, the group is closed. :neutral:
punmeetj99
Friday, Oct 08 2021
You may be panicking during test conditions. Record your test conditions, write down what you feel immediately prior, during and after the test.
You may be there conceptually and it is just mental stamina that you need work on.
punmeetj99
Friday, Oct 08 2021
@ , sulked this morning, got angry in the afternoon and crushing it now!
Only if you have stared your challenge in its eye and kept your calm, can you conquer - said someone at some point in life.
punmeetj99
Thursday, Apr 08 2021
Hi @,
Congratulations on getting offers and continuing to study and work through such challenging times!
If you have concerns that you may score lower and if the lower score will hurt your confidence, then there is no point in taking the test again. If you are practising test taking conditions and really believe that you will score higher (not just 2/3 points) then take it again.
In regards to how schools would view a lower score, my research shows that some schools do not look at lower scores and that they only look at your highest score. There are, however, some schools that take an average of your LSAT scores, so I would check the school website to see which criteria they use.
I hope this helps!
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Jul 07 2021
Depends a lot on how comfortable you feel with your score and how much improvement you have made.
Simplest answer is that you should not take the test until you are completely ready and have assessed (and come to terms with) your anticipated score range, your mental stamina, your surroundings at the time, your life events at the time, etc.
Do not take the test to simply take it, this will do more harm to you than help.
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Jul 07 2021
Hi there,
When looking at necessary assumptions, go to the granular and ask yourself how do I make sure this (conclusion) happens? Ask yourself with answer choice "if conclusion true, then must this be true?"
The granular in this case is that SHS can be installed. Should is recommendation language, you would not recommend something if it cannot happen. If it was the case that there is no need for SHS or SHS is inaccessible or corrupt, then SHS cannot happen. Why would you recommend something that cannot happen?
Side track discussion: say you are given a conclusion that "Coach ate peanuts at the game". How do you make sure that this happens, at the granular level? My guesses would be coach is able to eat peanuts, peanuts were not inaccessible to the coach, peanuts were not bad, etc.
a. must it be true that "SHS = no breakdown of vehicles that now cause traffic"? Maybe, how can I predict the future? Also, breakdown of vehicles is not in scope.
b. must it be true that "traffic lights, coordinated = assure free flow of traffic". Once again, maybe. How can I know this? The stimulus only talks about traffic signs, which is what I think LSAT wants you to confuse. Signs do not equal lights.
c. must it be true that"traffic flow not so bad that sig improvement impossible". Aha! So, SHS can be installed. If sig improvement (SHS) is impossible then how can you recommend installation of SHS?
d. must it be true that "type of equipment would vary amongst cities". How is this relevant and in scope of the argument? Equipment is not something you can jump to. It is possible but it is not "must be true".
e. must it be true that "older vehicles cannot be fitted to receive SHS signals"? Hmm, so there is a subset of vehicles where SHS is not advantageous. How does this make sure that my conclusion happens? It does not, it says the opposite. This would be okay for weakening but not for NA, where you are to say that the conclusion holds.
punmeetj99
Friday, Aug 06 2021
Stimulus:
Insect trap = small box w-insect poison and glucose. Glucose = attracts insects.
Homes w-regular use of traps in last several yrs w-recently installed traps = less effective in killing insects than the same type of trap used several years ago.Scientists = decrease in effectiveness due to following insect generations developed ability to resist poison.
Why are we only concentrating on poison resistance? Why is it not that insects got bored of glucose, which attracts them? Why is not that insects became smarter and realized why glucose was being used and started avoiding glucose (or glucose related areas) altogether? Why is it not that traps carry a symbol and insects started to identify the symbol?
a. Aha!, so following generations of insects started to naturally avoid glucose. They are no longer attracted, so they no longer go to the trap. Poison did not play any role, it is the glucose. Take that, trap!
b. So even when some insects survive effects of poison, their offspring usually resists poison. So, poison does play a role. This is not good, poison should play no role.
c. So, insects die more in homes where traps are not used than where traps are used. So, do they also die more outdoors? Soo out of scope. Traps are essential to the argument, their existence is in scope. We just have to prove that the cause for ineffectiveness is not poison but another factor.
d. Manufacturer ^’d poison level in traps and still traps no more effective than original traps. This just supports the argument that insects are now immune to poison.
e. Several kinds of glucose used in traps. Great, does nothing!
punmeetj99
Tuesday, Oct 05 2021
Confused myself btw AC A and E, silly goose (me).
A. Arg misrepresents criticism re results of overzealous enforcement re intrinsic value of overzealous enforcement. What intrinsic value was spoken of? I confused it with enforcement = good. I helped the argument without even knowing it! ughhhhh
E. Arg defends overzealous enforcement by suggesting superiority to implausible alternative of this sort of enforcement. This makes sense. Bauer reaches for extremes to make his claim seem great. Overzealous enforcement and enforcement are 2 diff things, Bauer.
punmeetj99
Wednesday, Feb 02 2022
Same re score (kind of, wanted higher but this works too).
OMGOD, WE DID IT! Party emoji
Hi @,
Firstly, congrats on taking the test and scoring as you have. You should not feel stupid at all, don't let this test get the best of you.
With respect to re-taking the test, I think you should retake the test when your consistent average of at least 5 PT's is in the range you want it to be in.
Would Aug LSAT be too late for me to send applications in Mid-September??
To this, I say that it depends on the school you want to go to. Check their website and inquire with their admissions office, if website is not so helpful.
Do you think I should keep my current job and focus on studying even at the risk of not improving very much? I'd been studying from May 2020 to Present (about 11 months).
I think estate planning is a great field and I have been in it, so my bias view says stay in it. If this current position gives you flexibility (and you anticipate that the offered positions may not) then you should definitely keep it and continue towards your LSAT goals. The issue for you may not be studying, it may just be your strategies or test day nerves.
I hope this helps, don't beat yourself up. I recently began focusing on my LSAT career after being in law firms and having that 9-11 job for several years, so I somewhat understand your pain and defeat.