Discussions

rashysn6sara860

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

Lessons · You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child (PSAr)

rashysn6sara860

Friday, Mar 28 2025

also my question!

PrepTests ·

PT113.S3.Q13

rashysn6sara860

Sunday, Mar 16 2025

I understand why answer choice C is correct but I am not convinced how answer choice E is contributing to an explanation? I don't find it reasonable to assume if someone has a more acute sense of their own mortality, then they have more fear of dying. I cannot relate this two together. Can someone help me understand?

Lessons · You Try - Coffeehouses and Restaurants

rashysn6sara860

Saturday, Mar 01 2025

I am so confused in processing a lesson that I read somewhere else a while ago, and would appreciate any help (not sure if it's correct and if it can be applied here!

I remember I learned that in a conditional statement like A and B → C we were not able to split the sufficient condition and it's wrong to say

A→B, A→C.

Whereas in a situation where we have A → B+C, it's okay to split it to

A→B, A→C.

With this question above I am a bit confused, in the first sentence we have a conditional statement which says coffeehouses and restaurants → public places, so should't we keep the coffeehouses and restaurants together throughout the question?

I have the sense that it's wrong but can’t help myself.

Lessons · You Try - Coffeehouses and Restaurants

rashysn6sara860

Saturday, Mar 01 2025

I believe this is not an assumption and the definition of the word not comfortable is uncomfortable so you can use them interchangeably.

Lessons · Lesson 5 - West Calverton Pet Shops

rashysn6sara860

Saturday, Mar 01 2025

#help Really wanna know the answer please help if you know.

If we had a different conditional statement in the stimulus, like this one:

Sell Gerbil → ~~S T Fish~~ + S E Birds

then in this situation could answer choice C be the right answer?

Lessons · Lesson 1 - fMRI and Privacy

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Feb 13 2025

I initially chose answer choice A and even after listening to the video I still had a very hard time figuring it out. I am sharing it for anyone who is also confused.

I am going to break down the given data in the stimulus:

1)Both an fMRI and a genetic profile contain information that a patient wishes to keep private.

2)An fMRI contains enough information from the patient’s skull to create a recognizable image of the patient’s face.

3)A genetic profile can be linked to a patient only by a label or matching records.

Now, consider this scenario: you have both the genetic profile of a patient and an fMRI of the same patient. Neither has a label. By looking at the fMRI, you could say, “Oh! That’s John’s face!” (since you can recognize a person’s face from the fMRI). But can you also tell that the genetic profile belongs to John? No! Why not? Because you can only identify the owner of a genetic profile if there is a label on it (e.g., “John…”), or if you have some record that lets you match the data to John.

Therefore, in this situation, the fMRI can put the patient’s privacy at a greater risk than the genetic profile.

Answer choice (B) says: “An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not.”

I hope that makes answer choice (B) much clearer now!

PrepTests ·

PT102.S2.Q7

rashysn6sara860

Tuesday, Jan 28 2025

I can see how "C" is the best answer choice to describe the main overall point of the argument, but this answer choice to me is not really satisfying, since it looks more like a brief summary of the important points not really the main conclusion which is "Without some qualification, however, this teaching is bound to mislead." I cannot see a single sign of the word misleading, or something even close that might be worded differently. Can someone convince me that how answer choice C is the main conclusion of this passage?

PrepTests ·

PT102.S2.Q23

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Jan 23 2025

#help I almost understood the whole process, except for the conditional statement part where it says "and this necessitates increased taxation". How should we conclude that this is referring to the government? why not referring to "problem disappears" or even the whole sentence "Only if the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing will this problem disappear"? I am really confused and appreciate any help in advance!

Lessons · Summary

rashysn6sara860

Wednesday, Jan 15 2025

#feedback this section was by far the most difficult section for me to understand. Even though I have noticed the importance of this section on the LSAT, but in here it was provided in an unnecessary complicated and disorganized format. The lack of video material kinda doubled it.

Lessons · Predictions

rashysn6sara860

Wednesday, Jan 15 2025

That's true! But we are just strengthening our hypothesis by these methods. Nothing can prove a hypothesis unless it is provided and declared as truth and fact. In other words no amount of correlation can ever prove a causation , it can only support it and make it stronger!

PrepTests ·

PT101.S3.Q6

rashysn6sara860

Wednesday, Jan 15 2025

I had a totally different interpretation for the AC "A", and please correct me. I thought because it mentions that the increase in Asthma patient's death was in the exact same period as the research, this might be coincidental and that's why doctors perceived it as a serious side effect. This answer choice shows that in those years death from Asthma rose and maybe it was not necessarily because of the Asthmagon, but doctors presumed it that way; which sounds like a weakening answer choice.

Lessons · Skill Builder - Negation 1

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Jan 09 2025

#Question Based on the videos we learned that for negating "All" statements we should follow A ←s→ /B , and for rest of the "Conditional" statements we should follow A and /B . My question is that since "All" is part of the conditional statements can we use these two rules interchangeably? in other words do we have two methods for negating conditional statements? I guess I noticed that in the answers above, so for a conditional relationship like "Everyone enjoys the movies" can we negate it with A ←s→ /B ? or on the other side for "All alphabets are phonetic" can we use A and /B for negation?

Lessons · Negating “All” Statements

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Jan 09 2025

from what I understood, this translation will not exclude the possibility of "NO dogs are friendly". I am going to explain it with a super detailed and easy example, the way I learned it...

Imagine we have 5 dogs in total, and our original statement is "All dogs are friendly", so based on this we agree on the absolute claim that all of the 5 dogs are friendly.

Now we want to negate the whole statement and we say "it's not the case that all dogs are friendly", so what do we mean by that? if not all dogs are friendly then there are different possibilities, maybe 4 of the dogs are friendly, maybe 2 of them, or maybe even 0 dog is friendly, so anywhere from 0-4 dog is friendly, therefore there is a chance that "no dog is friendly" or "none of the dogs are friendly"

now let's try and see if the "some... are not..." would actually validate what we just interpreted. "some dogs are not friendly", if we have 5 dogs, there are different possibilities, at least one dog is not friendly, maybe 4 of them are not friendly, or maybe even all 5 of them (some can include all). Therefore there is a chance that 5 dogs are not friendly, which can be written as "All dogs are not friendly"

Now let's compare the last statements

No dog is friendly (Group4): D → /F

All dogs are not friendly (Group 1): D → /F

we basically got the same result!

we can also conclude that:

Not all dogs are friendly= 0% to 99% of dogs are friendly. Or, in other words, 1% to 100% of dogs are not friendly.

Lessons · Skill Builder - Drawing Valid Conclusions 2

rashysn6sara860

Wednesday, Jan 08 2025

In Question#5, what if we had the negated version of what we have now. For example if the last sentence was "The Vale does not support peace securing foreign policies." Then in this case are we allowed to conclude that " Vale economies DOES NOT rely predominantly on trade"?

Lessons · Skill Builder - Rules and Exceptions (Embedded Conditionals)

rashysn6sara860

Tuesday, Jan 07 2025

For Question #5, I did the -Domain and Rule Frame work- as it was written in the answer, however, I was also trying to apply the joint sufficient method (not sure if it's doable),

I considered the first sentence as the domain:

domain: knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense

and diagrammed the conditional statement as below:

believes that does exist -> (aware of a high probability of it's existence -> established)

then I replaced the first arrow with and :

believes that does exist and aware of a high probability of it's existence -> established

the conditional statement above is technically my final statement however the main problem I encountered is that "believing that something does exist" and " being aware of high probability of it's existence" is very similar and doesn’t make sense to me to have them both on one side as a sufficient condition, If I want to be more clear, if someone believes that something does exist then that's enough and we don't even need to looking at the second condition of "being aware of a high probability of it's existence".

I am really confused and would appreciate any help!

Lessons · Skill Builder - Conjunction, Disjunction, and De Morgan's

rashysn6sara860

Monday, Jan 06 2025

I am a bit confused about #2, when we say "All trees are perennial plants with elongated stems.", does that mean trees have perennial plants and elongated stems as something separate or does it mean that the perennial plants themselves should have elongated stems? because if the second one is the correct interpretation I don't find it as two individual thing to show it with the word "and".

Lessons · Skill Builder - Draw Valid Conclusions 1

rashysn6sara860

Monday, Jan 06 2025

“The birds cannot sing unless pastries cook themselves” and “if birds can sing, then pastries cook themselves" are logically equivalent and technically the same thing.

Lessons · Skill Builder - Group 2 Translations 4

rashysn6sara860

Friday, Jan 03 2025

I also find it difficult and confusing in some situations when there is no clear sign of indicators. However, something that has helped me a lot is the ability to identify which condition comes first based on the data provided in the sentence. For example:

"Someone who has more than one overdue book out on loan from the library at the same time must be fined."

Based on the data, the first condition happening is having more than one overdue book out on loan from the library at the same time. That is our "first condition that should be happening"—it is our "trigger", which we call the sufficient condition. It is a condition that guarantees the next thing, which is "being fined", our "triggered" outcome. This outcome will 100% happen because we have pulled the trigger by meeting the first condition.

Now, let's imagine the reversed version based on the previous example and the same data. If we imagine "being fined" as our trigger and the sufficient condition, does it guarantee that therefore "someone has more than one overdue book out on loan from the library at the same time"? No! Just because someone is fined, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have done that. We don’t have enough information. Maybe they have stolen something, speeding, or millions of other reasons...

So, always try to see which condition is the trigger that guarantees another condition . What happens first is our sufficient condition (trigger) and is always going to be on the left side of the arrow. Whatever comes after, as a result of that—the guaranteed outcome—(triggered condition) is our necessary condition and is always going to be on the right side of the arrow.

hope that helps!

PrepTests ·

PT112.S1.Q26

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Jan 02 2025

I used this method which guided me through the correct answer :

Stated Premise: Recurrent Items --> Expensive props

Assumed Premise: ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Stated Conclusion: Recurrent Items --> /lack of props

Expensive props --> /lack of props

lack of props --> /Expensive Items (which is AC E)

(not sure if it's correct to assume that recurrent items are a subset of (many of the props Vermeer used)

Lessons · Modifiers: Structure v. Detail

rashysn6sara860

Thursday, Nov 21 2024

This is extremely hard, I'm not even anywhere close to the right answer. I thought "leaders sabotage the vote" is the kernel, which still doesn't make sense why it's not. Leaders as subject, sabotage as the verb, and the vote as the object. Can someone correct me?