- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
p: people were only willing to pay 2/3 the price of a gift they received from another
c: people value cash/gift cards more than gifts chosen by others
loophole: what if the amount people are willing to pay for a gift is NOT an accurate representation of how much the gift is actually worth to them?
D: what if how much someone would SELL a gift for is more representative of how much it is worth to them?
C: wrong comparison: we are not comparing gifts bought by friends/family v. others (both fall under the "gifts chosen by others" category); we are trying to compare gifts chosen by others to cash/gift cards
overview:
p: $ --> more unfulfilled desires
c: $ --> :(
loophole: what if having more unfulfilled desires doesn't make you less happy?
gap: more unfulfilled desires --> :(
answer choices:
A: no one is talking about the "GREATEST level of happiness"; this is irrelevant
B: less unfulfilled desires --> :) is logically equivalent to more unfulfilled desires --> :(
C: all this says is that having less unfulfilled desires tends not to make one MORE happy; this tells us nothing about whether having more unfulfilled desires makes one LESS happy
D: completely irrelevant
E: this weakens the argument, by giving an alternate explanation for the phenomenon (less happiness)
argument overview:
p1: most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job
c: financial rewards do not provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another
loophole:
what if salary isn't the ONLY way to measure how much people are motivated by financial rewards? (gap between "financial rewards" and "salary")
answer choices:
B: this is really just saying that people have a preference for higher wages; this fact has nothing to do with whether financial rewards are the GREATEST incentive for people to choose a job (which is what the argument is concerned with)
C: if it's true that financial rewards do not ONLY refer to salary (i.e. health benefits, pension, etc.), then we can't really infer (just from the fact that a bunch of people did not claim SALARY was the highest incentive for them to choose a job) that FINANCIAL REWARDS aren't the strongest incentive for people to choose a job
overview:
p: people from disparate cultures identified the same emotions when looking at photographs
c: people are genetically predisposed to identifying emotions
loophole: what if people from different cultures can be socialized to identify emotions in the same way? (it may not be genetic predisposition that caused this)
answer choices:
A: even if they were all wrong 10% of the time, the fact that they all agreed on what emotion was being shown is what the author is basing their conclusion on
B: i got tripped up by this ac because i didn't fully understand what an "emotional disposition" was
emotional disposition: a person's stable, long-lasting tendency to experience certain emotions more frequently or intensely than others
we are not concerned with the subjects EXPERIENCING emotions, but rather IDENTIFYING them in photographs of other people. this is not relevant to the conclusion.
C: some behaviors (in people from different cultures) are culturally influenced. this would hurt the argument by opening up the possibility that the observed pattern wasn't because of a genetic predisposition, but cultural influence.
D: this MUST be assumed; if it is negated (a behavior common to people from different cultures is probably not genetically predisposed), the conclusion would fall apart
E: if this was negated (the pictures were all of people from the same culture), it would help the argument, because people from different cultures were able to agree on what emotion was being shown.
overview:
the conclusion is solely based on city dog licensing records
loophole: what if people in the FH neighborhood are just more likely to register their dogs with the city? (maybe they don't actually own more cocker spaniels than other neighborhoods)
answer choices:
A: we are not trying to figure out whether cocker spaniels are more likely to run away than other breeds
B: again, we don't care about comparing cocker spaniels to other breeds; residents of FH could have double the amount of golden retrievers compared to cocker spaniels, and still have more cocker spaniels than any other neighborhood
C: the answer to this question wouldn't give us enough information to say anything about the conclusion. how many of those strays are cocker spaniels? how many of the strays found in and around FH even owned by FH residents?
D: even if every FH member also owns 5 birds and 3 cats, owning a greater number of pets per capita than any other neighborhood, that doesn't tell us anything about how many cocker spaniels they or people outside their neighborhood own.
E: this would tell us whether the city licensing records are an accurate measure of how many cocker spaniels are owned by FH members. if residents of FH are, for some reason, more likely to register their dogs with the city, then they may not actually have more cocker spaniels than other neighborhoods, making the conclusion fall apart.
question overview:
p1: everyone wants to finish the game
p2: game can be purchased or rented for 2 days
p3: publisher refunds 1 rental for buyers
p4: sales meet expectations
p5: rentals exceed expectations
c: sales will soon exceed expectations
loophole: what if most people can finish the game in 2 days, so they are better off renting? (sales may not go up)
to fill in the gap, we need something that tells us why people would choose to buy over rent
answer choices:
A: So? Is the price any different? Either way, this doesn't tell us anything about whether people would buy or continue to rent.
B: If this is true, it provides a reason people would choose to buy the game rather than continue to rent it, because it would be cheaper in the long-run. Since sales currently meet expectations, this would strengthen the author's conclusion that sales will soon exceed expectations.
C: Why do we care about how popular these games are compared to other games on the market? This tells us nothing about buying v renting.
D: Ok, but we need to know how long it takes them to complete it in the first place, not whether or not they play it afterwards.
E: This just tells us something about what a few people who decide to buy the game do with it afterwards. What about the renters? What is their incentive to buy the game? This doesn't do anything for the conclusion about sales going up.
I picked C, since the passage says:
...they each address the politics of multiple cultural identities...
C says:
Each contains analysis of the ways in which its content was influenced by its author's cultural background.
Still don't see how this is wrong, can anyone help?
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.
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.
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.
A: we can't say this; only one potential reason they oppose it (antibiotics) is listed in the argument, but they could oppose it for many other reasons that are not listed
B: maybe in terms of antibiotics, but what if BST also affects milk in some other way that isn't listed? this is too big of a jump
C: the argument says BST boosts milk production; this directly counters that
D: presumed safe --> successfully screened
(/successfully screened --> /presumed safe)
the argument says that, in high levels, antibiotics may be harmful to humans; it also says milk is screened for antibiotics --> we can therefore conclude that, if the milk was not screened, it would not be safe for consumption
E: this is way too big of a jump; high levels of antibiotics are one listed threat, but there could be any number of unlisted threats