- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
A day or two before the exam on Monday would be ideal =))))) @7sagestudentservices
bump. Will the explanations for this PT be available before exam day next Monday? @7sagestudentservices
So I got this question correct by using POE, but I'm still having trouble seeing how a conflation between "competitive sports" and "any sport" is the flaw.... I guess what I'm trying to figure out is how can a sport be non-competitive? I just don't find it to be unreasonable to assume that a sport is necessarily competitive.....? Idk
So after coming back to this question months later, the correct AC and JYs explanation make much more sense to me. AC C really just does nothing to help explain the statistical information, whereas you can make sense of AC B explaining the statistical information with giving it a bit of charitable help.
My overly emotional response makes it clear how very disturbed I was by this question many months ago.... lol. Really is amazing how far you can come on the LSAT with time and practice.
I was thinking along the same lines, and would appreciate some further clarification from someone with a better understanding.
I got hung up on question 18 and was stuck between (C) and (E). I made a note of the word "gloomier" in line 44 as the Authors tone, which led me to vacillate between the two answer choices that took a side in the debate.
Line 44 says "Not until the 1960s did a gloomier perspective gain popular ground." Is this not an indication of the Authors preference for Marsh's theory which is described by the Author as one that "elicited wide acclaim without embittered denials."(19-20) ???
I had the same issue with this question and correct answer choice (B). Equivocating "not being an indicator of a groups success" to "unsuccessful" seems like a stretch to me. This led me to quickly eliminate answer choices A B and D, because I felt as though it was unreasonable to use the "An underground rock group is unsuccessful" or similarly, "An underground rock group is successful" as sufficient or necessary conditions in our answer choices.
I get that this is a PSA question and the question stem is asking us for an AC that "if valid, most helps to justify" the argument... but the necessary conditions in answer choices C and E matched up perfectly with that in the stimulus (not being marks of success).
I guess my lesson learned with this one is to be a little more flexible with the language the LSAC uses, especially in PSA questions. However, it really pisses me off that I feel as though this same type of ambiguous equivocation is employed by the LSAC to make trap/wrong answer choices.
For answer choice (B), would substituting the word "accidents" for "injuries" make this correct?
I am having trouble with Question 1. I felt as though when the author says "The images WERE PROBABLY intended to make these animals vulnerable to the weapons of the hunters...." most supports B. I figured that saying something is "probably the case" is most likened to "hesitant agreement" in AC B. I was between A B C and couldn't decide, so I used lines 43-44 to support hesitant agreement.
Thoughts anyone ?
For AC (E), I do not understand how "The pumping costs increase with the distance the water is pumped." is not evidence for the claim "The greatest expense in irrigated agriculture is in pumping the water." That seems like direct evidence as to why the greatest expense in irrigated agriculture is in pumping water (because distance).
Any help is appreciated.
This makes much more sense. Thanks guys @wraith985-4026 @publicbenjamin638
Hello all,
I’m seeking some clarification for the following argument that is given as an example of a “Belief vs Facts” flaw in the Core Curriculum.
Admin edit: Removed. Please link to the argument and do not post things directly from the course.
My breakdown of the argument is as follows:
A (FRB) is a (X)
Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB) earlier this year
Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (X)
The curriculum says the conclusion does not follow because it’s not clear that Dr. L knows what (X) is, except that her colleague’s lab detected one. So my question is would the conclusion follow if it instead said “Therefore, Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected a (FRB)”, rather than an (X) that was erroneously concluded? I’m just a little tripped up because the argument is concluding that Dr. L knows that her colleague’s lab detected something (X), which follows from the premise that Dr. L knows that her colleagues lab detected an (FRB), which is an (X). I feel as though my lack of understanding for this flaw is exploited time and time again on LR questions so any additional insight is appreciated. Thanks!
You're not alone, as I also spent too much time getting this question wrong. I was vacillating between A and D. I chose D because of how easily it was to support, and ultimately did not choose A because I felt it was a stretch to necessarily infer requirements for teachers goals. Since the argument did not mention the teachers goals at all, I couldn't confidently attach any requirements to their duties.
During the timed exam I made the inference that a teacher should be doing what they can to increase/stimulate a students genuine curiosity, I just seemed to be thrown by the words "requires" and "goals." However, considering this is a MBT, the word "requires" shouldn't be deemed too strong... I guess.
Would like a little help on Question #4. I was between C and D, but chose D. Wasn't the takeaway from paragraph 3 that we need to take oral testimony with a grain of salt because a person will tend to over-exaggerate the details of the events as they occurred? I used lines 37-43 to support answer choice D, that we shouldn't use Tuckers' historical account of the events as an objectively accurate report, which is what D states......
I contrasted this with answer choice C, where I felt it was a stretch to say that lines 16-18 "help shed new light on a part of U.S. entertainment history about which, so far, there has been insufficient scholarship" can be said to be "significant information." My rationale was just because the work of Tucker helped shed new light on a part a history that nobody cared about previously, doesn't necessarily mean it was a significant amount of information... It could have just been a minor detail. I understand the passage later goes into greater detail about the authors study and Tuckers' work, but I felt as though it's more of a stretch to call these findings "significant detail" in contrast to answer choice D that seems to me to be directly supported from paragraph 3.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you
This question taught me a great lesson not to be so quick to throw away an answer choice because the first half is complete trash. After reading the first sentence, I failed to give the rest of the AC the respect it deserved and eliminated it, ultimately falling for trap AC (A) through POE.
I feel as though I missed Q13 during my timed run and BR because I was too quick to go right to the only place I knew 1989 was mentioned, and got stuck on just that area of the passage. I find that the newer passages use this tactic to easily trap test takers into focusing too narrowly on where a date/phrase was mentioned. The answer is clearly E, and is supported from lines 33-36. This is simply an adjustment that we have to make as test takers, at least for me.
I got this question right during my timed run, but it took me way too long as I had difficulties eliminating answer choice E. I easily identified the flaw as sufficiency vs necessary, but my problem with ac C was that it's referring to the "natural world as a whole" as an object. This made 0 sense to me.
Thoughts?
Got this question wrong solely because I failed to equivocate skeptical with critical...... I guess that's a common sense presumption in LSAT land. Nice