Discussions

User Avatar
sxiapring47
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
LSAT · PTA.S1.Q3 - In a Democratic society, when a political..
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Sunday, Jan 29 2023

Hi there!

A would be incorrect because the stimulus doesn't say anything about an expanding membership v. a stable membership. all we know is that when membership"exceeds a certain size," conflicting interests would surface. So according to the stimulus, I could have a HUGE but stable membership, like 1000000 people, and it would be less likely for it to be united/influential versus an expanding but super small membership (e.g. 1 members expanding to 20 members).

0
PrepTests ·
PT139.S2.P1.Q3
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Saturday, Jan 27 2024

Q3:

is influenced by the attitudes of those who live in them is supported by line 54 "zoning and subdivision policies that reflect them

3
PrepTests ·
PT143.S2.P4.Q23
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Saturday, Jan 27 2024

notes from deep review:

Q23 Trick AC B: they have stimulated important new research regarding an issue that scientists prev. thought was settled

Previously thought was settled??? Where tf this come from?? The first part is correct but this last part is j nonsense that is tacked on

*

Q24: the atomic structure of glass is such that glass will… *

Prephrase answer: be physically solid even tho the atoms wont freeze completely when cooled below a certain temp (some hundred degrees celsius), but retains molten structure

A: behave like a liquid even tho it has properties of solid

?? glass wont “behave like a liquid,” its more like it behaves like a solid even tho the atoms are kinda liquid

C: behave like a solid even when it has reached its glass transition temperature

I saw “behave like a solid” and did not digest what the later part of the sentence really meant

Glass transition temperature = glass gets hotter and hotter, then it will start to flow on its own weight even if this flow is negligible

“For glass to have more than a negligible ability to flow, it would have to be heated to at least 350 c” → so DUH ofc it does have the ability to flow

*

D: flow downwards under its own weight if heated to glass transition temperature*

Why is D right

D is j using very convoluted language but its actually saying smth so simple, its basically saying, glass will flow if u heat it up → OFC!

“Glass transition temperature…cooled below the lower end of this range, molten glass retains an amorphous atomic structure, but it takes on the physical properties of a solid”

Translation: so basically, there is a range of temp, when the temp is low, the glass will be solid → SO, it is INFERRED that if u go up in temperature, the glass will be more fluid

Why did I not choose D

Bc i was so hung up on the big argument that glass does not FLOW, but missed the point that its not that glass doesnt flow, its that it DOES but it does so very NEGLIGIBLY at room temp → ofc if u heat it up it will flow!!

The point of the passage isnt to say that glass NEVER flows, its to say that at room temperature, its ability to flow downwards is so negligible that it would not cause thicker glass on the bottom of cathedrals

How did D hide in plain sight

Bc the passage never directly talks ab HEATING glass, only the effect of cooling it → must make an inference

1
PrepTests ·
PT140.S2.Q21
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Saturday, Jan 27 2024

A: idk anything about unrequested transcripts

B: only time renown was mentioned is in NONFICTION world, so can’t draw any conclusions from /renown to fiction

C: careful attention is not tied to fiction world

D: LESS likely? No comparative language of likelihood given in stim

E: if not submitted by L and not requested, then it can't be fic --> so must be non-fic. we know its published, but not requested, so that leaves the only way for a non fic to be published to be if its by a renowned author

1
PrepTests ·
PT142.S1.Q17
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Friday, Jan 20 2023

yooo this q is so hard bc the correct answer is such a subtle strengthener

the flaw is pretty obvious: because purple & glass made from same material (prem) → so purple was made ACCIDENTALLY during glass production

What if its the other way around? What if GLASS was made accidentally while making Han purple? So what if they are made from the same material and same process → what if they were discovered independently? What if Han purple was discovered during some OTHER chemical process (not making glass?)

soooo I chose E under time, but E is wrong bc so what if glass is found in more SURVIVING artifacts? This has more to do w how artifacts were preserved/found rather than how the han purple was made

EVEN IF there is more glass than han purple, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO W WHEN THE TWO things were made. There are SOOO many reasons for why you might have more glass than the purple. Like, you just NEED hella glass to make houses, and you DONT need purple. So ofc you have more glass than purple. This doesnt make it so that purple was discovered while making glass. Wtf

A is correct bc its a WEAK defense against the possibility that han purple and white glass were produced completely INDEPENDENT from each other. By suggesting that they are made in the same region → more likely that they were produced/discovered together.

2
User Avatar
•

Monday, May 19

sxiapring47

PT53S1Q8

Omg I've been wracking my brain trying to think through this question, could really use some help!!

I have trouble understanding why D is correct.

I dismissed it because D claims that the two faulty studies do not support a causal finding, when the premise is based on the two study's correlational finding. The conclusion also specifically clarifies that it only applies under the assumption that "IF night lights cause nearsightedness," so even if the studies are faulty and do not support a causal finding, it doesn't hurt a conclusion that already operates under a world where night lights do cause nearsightedness.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

0
PrepTests ·
PT135.S2.Q16
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Wednesday, Jan 18 2023

Under timed, my thought process was:

Ok… what if U has terrible equipment/ staff shortage so the only way it could have the same recovery rate as E is precisely BECAUSE it has a longer length of stay?

Overall flaw: there must be other reasons that U has a longer length of stay – having same recovery rate for same disease isn’t enough to say it can reduce length of stay

On review, the flaw can be seen as a generalization. The premise is about recovery rate for “same diseases,” but the conclusion generalizes to overall quality of care, regardless of same/different diseases bc it says “quality of care” without qualifying “quality of care for the SAME DISEASES”

I chose D because my prephrase was: what if U has the same recovery rate precisely bc of its longer stay? But the argument never claims that it is NEVER relevant, if it is NEVER relevant to the quality of care, it would not say that U could reduce stay by 2 days without affecting the quality of care. The conclusion that U could reduce 2 days without affecting quality of care concedes that length of stay must have some factor in quality of care.

For D to be right, the conclusion would have to say: since they have the same recovery rate for the same illness, average stay of patients is completely unnecessary in determining recovery rate

3
LSAT · PT9.S2.Q07 - Waste management companies, which collect waste for disposal in landfills...
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Wednesday, Jan 18 2023

Hi! This question is super tough bc it deals with percentage/amount confusion. Here is my approach to this question

What evidence (premise) do we know? that the PERCENTAGE of plastic in waste that waste management companies handle is increasing. What does this mean? Does this mean that the total AMOUNT of plastic they handle is increasing? No, all we know is, relative to the other waste (metals, glass, etc etc) that they handle, there is now more plastic.

Ok, now they conclude that people are not recycling LESS (note that this is a claim about the AMOUNT of plastic) plastic. How does this conclusion connect to the premise? well, the argument is trying to argue that because the percentage of plastic that waste management companies deals with (assuming that if it goes to waste management, its not recycled) has increased, that the AMOUNT of plastic being thrown to these waste management companies has increased.

So the glaring flaw is that we have a premise about the percentage of plastic that's being thrown away, and the conclusion is about the total amount of plastic thats being thrown away.

We cannot conclude anything about the amount of plastic in the garbage based on knowledge of the percentage of plastic in the garbage. imagine this:

garbage A: 4 plastic and 4 glass

what percent of this garbage is plastic? 4/8, or 1/2, or 50%

how MUCH plastic in this garbage? 4

garbage B: 3 plastic and 1 glass

what percentage of this garbage is plastic? 3/4, or 75%

how MUCH plastic is in this garbage? 3

so even though garbage B has a higher PERCENTAGE (75% > 50%) of plastic, it actually has less amount of plastic (3 ( 4) than garbage A.(/p)

D addresses exactly that flaw. If D were true, then the percentage of garbage that waste management handled has increased because waste management is no longer handling as much of the other things (glass, paper, metal, etc).

Hope this helps!

0
General · Analyze PT93 Live with J.Y. Ping!
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Monday, Nov 14 2022

The Man, the Myth, the Legend.

0
PrepTests ·
PT129.S1.Q24
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Tuesday, Jun 14 2022

Omg I chose C immediately after I scanned the AC b/c I thought it was attacking premise so it didn't properly weaken the argument.

But no! Premise says acidic pollutants HAS decreased

C doesn't deny that it has decreased, only that it is not projected to continue decreasing in the future.

1
PrepTests ·
PT113.S4.Q17
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Sunday, Nov 13 2022

damn this question is brilliant. such a cookie cutter flaw but SO MANY attractive wrong ACs

my brain is fried

P: Reduce speed limit -cor- fewer highway fatality than prev yr

C: reduce speed limit causes fewer traffic fatalities

immediate thought: okay... typical cor =/ causation flaw. how to attack these? introduce alternative cause

more eloquent prephrase:

1. Highway fatality = traffic fatalities?

2. Some other thing caused fewer highway fatalities

A:

- Does the arg assume this:

○ No; even if arg assumed, if anything, this strengthens the arg

B:

- did the drivers obey speed lim before? We don’t know

C:

- Conc is about FATALITIES, C is about NUMBER of accidents

D: does not even fall within the scope of what the arg is about. the flaw has to be something that the argument assumes within its support structure. D would be a good weaken AC, smth like: in the year since, speed limit law is much more significantly enforced. or that before this year, speed lim laws were not enforced at all

E: f the previous yr fatalities was a ANOMOLY, then this constitutes as an alternative cause for the reduced highway fatalities

if we deny E, then the fewer traffic fatalities this year would not be caused by the reduction in the speed limit, it would just be a return from anomaly to normal

4
Study Groups · Study Group for October/November 2022 LSATs
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Tuesday, May 10 2022

Hi! I'm interested

1
Study Groups · Study Group [August 2022 LSAT]
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Tuesday, May 10 2022

hey! i'm interested

1
Study Groups · Study Group for 2023 LSATs
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Tuesday, May 10 2022

Hi! I'm interested & studying this summer too :)

0
Study Groups · Group Study/Discord 2022 -- 170+ -- Memes welcome
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Monday, Mar 07 2022

Hi there! I know this is super late but i'd love to join!

0
LSAT · PTF97.S3.Q20 - Criminals released from prison on parole..
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Friday, Jan 06 2023

Hi! This is pretty late but here's my understanding of this question:

Translation:

Usually, criminals released from prison have routine supervision [ok, they're about to say something contrary to what happens "usually"]

now, there's this new program that allows some prisoners to be released early under intense supervision -- they hv curfews and maybe even electronically monitored [woah ok, so we know some released prisoners are subject to super intense supervision]

percentage of released criminals arrested under intense and regular supervision is the same [ok so it seems like prisoners released who misbehave may get arrested again. and we know that percentage of those re-arrested for intense and regular supervision are the same...this is heading towards a conclusion]

conclusion: intense supervision not better at preventing released criminals from committing additional crimes

woah hold on, so they are rly using a premise about the percentage of ARRESTS to make a conclusion about crime PREVENTION? What is this reasoning? The author must make some kind of assumption that the percentage of arrests = percentage of crimes committed.

Isn't it likely that it is precisely because intense supervision is SO intense, that no one gets away with the crimes they committed -- hence they all get arrested. like, if you are electronically tracking my location every second, ofc you're gonna catch me when I commit a crime.

on the other hand, maybe routine supervision just fails to catch all the crimes --> hence less arrests. If this were true, it could totally be the case that almost ALL of the criminals released under "routine supervision" are committing crimes, but they are just not getting arrested bc the routine supervision fails to supervise them.

Ok, now to the answer choices

Negate E: number of criminals released under routine was much greater than the number released under intensive.

The reason E is wrong is because differences in number of prisoners released is accounted for by the stimulus. We know the proportion of arrests are the same, regardless of how many prisoners were released under each type of supervision.

E.g. 10 criminals are released under routine, 2 criminals released under intensive.

but the percentage of arrests are the same. Suppose the percentage is 50%, then 5 are arrested under routine, 1 is arrested under intensive. So here, even though many more criminals are released under routine supervision, as long as the percentage of arrests are the same, the conclusion still holds. For E to be correct, the conclusion would've had to say: "so intensive supervision is not better at arresting less number of released criminals."

C is correct because it attacks the gap in the argument that jumps from percentage of arrests to percentage of crimes committed. If we negate C, it is not the case that intense supervision failed to prevent crimes, but that its making many more arrests, relative to the crimes committed.

2
LSAT · PTF.S1.Q1 - Sea turtles hatchlings leaving their hatching grounds...
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Friday, Jan 06 2023

Hi! Here is my understanding:

Translation:

newly hatched sea turtles swim to the north, according to the earth's magnetic field.

in an indoor tank, we see the same thing happen (newly hatched turtle swim to the north)

but when we surround the tank with a fake magnetic field stronger than the earth's and in the opposite direction(assuming it would cover up the earth's magnetic field), the turtles swim in the opposite direction as well

So what can we most strongly infer from the above premises?

It's reasonable to think that the turtles ended up swimming in the opposite direction in prem.3 because they based their direction on the artificial magnetic field (which is opposite to earth's). So the turtles must be able to sense magnetic fields, and they don't just swim in whichever direction because of some crazy intuition or smell. If this is true, then without the artificial magnetic field, it must be the case that the turtles base their sense of direction on Earth's natural magnetic field, causing them to swim north.

0
LSAT · PT2.S4.Q23 - An advertisement states...
User Avatar
sxiapring47
Friday, Jan 06 2023

Hi! I think this is a great question that tests understanding of "not more"

stimulus says: no headache pill stops pain more quickly than D

I find it easier understand via diagramming, so:

other headache pill -> /more quickly than D

NOT more quickly than D = could be less quick than D, could be equally as quick. just not MORE quickly. So C is correct. Another question that tests a similar understanding is 73.2.21 if you want to check that out.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?