- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
Hi all! I'm looking for a study buddy that's currently scoring in the 160-170 range, and hoping to score 170+. I've been studying for about 5 months now, and haven't been making as much progress as I'd like. I'm scheduled to take the September LSAT, and I've received a lot of tips that talking through and debating answers with someone else in a similar score range can be really helpful. If anyone is in a similar boat, I'd love to complete a few sections individually and then meet via zoom to BR them together.
A: Chose to try and strengthen analogy (baby example was empirically disproven, if this is too, maybe the cases are more analogous)
Negation --> the article will NOT be empirically disproven anytime soon. This doesn't destroy the argument; we don't care when or if it will be disproven, because we're not trying to figure out whether the article actually true or not (only what the assumption of the argument is).
B: In order to be analogous to the baby case, the example must contain some connection to selective memory bias. Medical staff forgot the instances where the patients' predictions were wrong --> inaccurately fed the belief that many patients can accurately predict changes in their medical status (NOW this is analogous to the baby case, where medical staff were more likely to remember babies born on a full moon, inaccurately feeding the belief that babies were more likely to be born on these nights).
C: Negation --> the patients WERE being serious. Ok, weren't we already assuming that? The conclusion (that this article should not be trusted) can definitely still be true.
D: Less babies are born on full moon nights. Ok, so? Even if the same amount of babies are born on a full moon night, this doesn't affect our analogy to the patients at all.
E: Negation --> this IS a widely held belief. The author can still argue that we should be skeptical of the belief based on the analogy. How widely held the belief is doesn’t impact the reasoning of the argument.
P1: HD affects men earlier
P2: young men have 10x testosterone
P3: women lose estrogen after menopause
C: testosterone promotes and estrogen inhibits HD
Gap: Young men get HD because their testosterone is higher; women don't get HD until later because of their estrogen levels
A: Physician doesn't need hormones to be the primary factor for the argument to be true. T and E can still influence one's likelihood of getting HD in some way without being the primary influence .
B: Physician doesn't need this to be true; if E and T are NOT the only hormones that determine one's likelihood of getting HD, they can still influence it.
C: Physician never says men with high T have a greater risk of HD than PM women. If anything, they say they are both at high risk. Even if this is not the case (ex: both groups have the same risk of HD), the conclusion that T promotes and E inhibits HD can still stand.
D: This is the flaw: the physician assumes that observed differences in T and E levels are the cause of the observed phenomenon (HD affecting men earlier than women), without providing any evidence that the hormones are actually causing anything. Correlation does NOT mean causation.
E: Physician's argument is based on general trends; they are NOT assuming every person of the same age and gender has identical hormone levels.