Discussions

tanyabansal599

Joined: Apr 2025
Subscription: Free

General · Positivity Thread: Speak your desired LSAT score into existence!

tanyabansal599

Saturday, Oct 09 2021

I shall get a 175+ on my October LSAT (3(/p)

PrepTests ·

PT119.S2.Q21

tanyabansal599

Saturday, Oct 02 2021

That was my reasoning too! If we consider to duty of patient confidentiality as the relevant duty, then if she doesn't fulfill it, she better have overwhelming evidence that not fulfilling it will lead to disastrous consequences.

However, clearly recurring nightmares that the patient "may" have committed a client, is not overwhelming evidence! So, failing to fulfil her duty of confidentiality is not justified.

PrepTests ·

PT152.S4.Q7

tanyabansal599

Sunday, Sep 19 2021

#help Lol as a vegetarian I just don't think of a low-protein high fruit / veg diet as a "special diet". I guess the LSAT is culturally biased but that aside, why are we calling this a special diet?

PrepTests ·

PT106.S2.Q13

tanyabansal599

Saturday, Sep 18 2021

Grammatical analysis of AC (A). We are given 2 comparative statements

Statement 1: Age differential between two trees in the stand

Statement 2: Growth period of white pines to maturity

AC (A) states that statement 1 cannot be much more than statement 2 i.e. the age differential between any two trees in this stand of mature white pines cannot exceed the amount to time it takes for a single white pine to fully grow to maturity. To make the visualization easier, imagine two adjacent trees in the stand. If the age differential between them did exceed the growth period of a tree to maturity, then the fully grown neighbor would block out all the sunlight, prohibiting its poor neighbor from photosynthesising, which is necessary to survival. Hence, the age differential does have to be lower or at most equal to the growth period.

PrepTests ·

PT104.S3.P3.Q20

tanyabansal599

Thursday, Sep 16 2021

That was caveated in the last paragraph that the reason plugging nostrils had a negative effect might well be due to the pain/ discomfort caused by the plugs themselves rather than from the impact on olfactory sense. In fact Schmidt and Phillips' experiment weakens the connection between olfactory ability and the map sense

PrepTests ·

PT144.S4.Q18

tanyabansal599

Tuesday, Sep 14 2021

thanks @jknarf513! That helped. I am revisiting this question after a while. AC (E) is absolutely a NA because when negated, it definitely snatches any support that the premise (overland travel super hard) gives to the conclusion (hence hairless dogs were transported by boat).

If the question was a SA question, then I'm not so sure if AC (E) does much.

General · Frustrated and unsure how to proceed

tanyabansal599

Tuesday, Sep 14 2021

I've also been out of undergrad for 3 years so I feel you but really, another year is nothing in the grand scheme of things!!! Remember you are still very young with a whole future ahead. Okay, moving on to more LSAT relevant (and less philosophical) stuff, maybe pushing your test to Nov is a good thing but I would make a solid study plan so I know what I am working towards each day. Good luck!

PrepTests ·

PT103.S1.Q26

tanyabansal599

Monday, Sep 13 2021

NA: There are some responsible handwriting analysts who claim reliability of such analysis

PrepTests ·

PT101.S2.Q10

tanyabansal599

Sunday, Sep 12 2021

I share your thoughts that the two statements "buying more durable goods" and "they expect economic growth in the near feature” are not entirely independent premises - meaning that one of the two is a sub-conclusion (SC).

However, I think your statements are flipped. "buying more durable goods" is the premise (hence, primary evidence) that supports the SC "they expect economic growth in the near feature”. This is also indicated (no pun intended LOL) by the word "indicating" which links the two statements.

Hence, AC (D) is wrong because the our question stem statement acts as the premise which supports the SC, not the other way around.

General · Scored a 173 on the august exam

tanyabansal599

Sunday, Sep 12 2021

hi mate BIG congrats!!! I have been PT-ing mid-160s but got a 159. Retaking in October, so less than a month. Do you have any strategies you can recommend? Taking timed PTs isn't helping. Is there any way of studying more selectively? Thanks and good luck!

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q16

tanyabansal599

Saturday, Sep 04 2021

thanks @allgainnobrain that was so helpful!

PrepTests ·

PT106.S3.Q22

tanyabansal599

Saturday, Sep 04 2021

#help an aside but if this was a MAIN POINT question what would be the conclusion?

"It is clear that psychological factors have taken over this role in us"

"So, pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past"

PrepTests ·

PT114.S2.Q21

tanyabansal599

Friday, Sep 03 2021

#help I picked AC (D) and still don't get why it is incorrect.

The conclusion is prescriptive - i.e. athletes (who want to increase muscle strength) should never consume engineered foods which implies that we need a strong reason to say that athletes should NOT consume these foods. AC (D) provides that strong reason - engineered foods offer vitamins and nutrients (which can obviously be obtained naturally from elsewhere) and don't increase muscle mass - hence, they should not be consumed.

My beef with AC (C) is that while it rules out other benefits of engineered foods, yes, it doesn't get to the disadvantages. So what if there are no substantial benefits but an athlete still likes the taste (using JY's example)? How does lack of substantial benefits imply a prescriptive NEVER CONSUME THIS. (I can almost see a warning label in my head).

Whereas, something being unhealthy is clearly a good reason to stay the hell away from it, especially given that it doesn't serve the purpose of increasing muscle strength. (Think steroids which are also "unhealthy" but at least they do their job in increasing muscle strength.)

PrepTests ·

PT101.S3.Q23

tanyabansal599

Monday, Aug 23 2021

The key to this question is figuring out that it takes a LOT more narrow floorboards to cover up big ass houses for the rich. I didn't get this at the first go but after JY's explanation it is crystal clear.

PrepTests ·

PT103.S3.Q24

tanyabansal599

Monday, Aug 23 2021

Honestly don't understand how these consumers, whether individuals or groups (corporates/ govts) can drive up the price. But I think that basic market competitiveness can help a little bit - when consumers are a large, undifferentiated group, they lose bargaining power vis-a-vis the sellers and hence drive up prices.

PrepTests ·

PT101.S2.Q19

tanyabansal599

Monday, Aug 23 2021

Picked (E) under timed conditions and changed to (B) in BR because I noticed that AC (B) said that the government began a road repair program - ok but lots of programs may begin and not be completed. Did they actually complete the program to an extent that it improved driving conditions hence reducing traffic fatalities?

Nevertheless, I see JY's point that AC (E) is simply offering a kind of causal mechanism for why the drivers may have become more skillful, hence it can't be a weakening AC and wins over (B).

PrepTests ·

PT106.S1.Q23

tanyabansal599

Monday, Aug 23 2021

I think your interpretation is correct that non clinically depressed folks are more likely to engage in social activity that increases FL activity. But exactly! that social activity is that external factor that disproportionately increases FL activity in the non depressed people vis-a-vis the depressed folks.

Recall the 4 possibilities regarding correlation between A & B?

1. A causes B

2. B causes A (this is your reverse causation) - Mapping A to high FL activity and B to low FL activity, I don't see how B causes A applies

3. C causes both A and B - on point in AC (E) because this specific social activity causes A (high FL activity in non depressed people) as well as B (low FL activity in depressed people)

4. No causal relationship

The third possibility feels more applicable, compared to the second one, in AC (E)

LSAT · Plans for test day and the week before

tanyabansal599

Friday, Aug 13 2021

Two PTs before Tues (Test Day) and few LG problem sets. Waking up early Tues - down lots of water early in the morn, breathing exercises, short run / jog to get the blood flowing, meditate and eat some fruit. Make sure to keep a water bottle and a small snack (granola bar, nuts, candy, whatever) next to you in case you need to refuel during the break :)

PrepTests ·

PT144.S4.Q18

tanyabansal599

Monday, Aug 02 2021

#help why is AC (A) not correct? Forget Spain, lets look in Lat Am say Brazil.

We need it to be the case that hairless dogs didn't exist in Brazil because otherwise, what prevents the possibility that herds of hairless dogs were transported to both Mexico and Peru (at the same time or not, by land or by sea are all irrelevant).

It's almost similar to correlation causation errors where a third factor (in this case presence of hairless dogs in Brazil) is causing both X (presence of hairless dogs in Mexico) and Y (presence of hairless dogs in Peru).

Never mind the manner in which the dogs could have been transported from Mexico to Peru (or vice versa), how do we know that it must be the case that hairless dogs were transported between these two countries? Please help #Brazil

LSAT

•

Tuesday, Jul 27 2021

tanyabansal599

"Some" in strengthen-weaken questions

Hi Everyone!

This seems to be a recurring theme in several LR questions, so perhaps worth considering. When attacking a support (premise to conclusion) in an argument, isn't the use of "some" i.e. other cases or situations, irrelevant - as we cannot know whether our case at hand falls within the scope of that "some".

Take for example the below question on proto-indo-european languages: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

Here, we have to assume that PIE falls within the "some" languages which do not have words for prominent environmental conditions.

However, in the question on chess players and humming (link below), apparently it is wrong to assume that the humming falls within the scope of "some" involuntary actions as per AC (C).

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/

Any thoughts welcome!

PrepTests ·

PT146.S4.P1.Q2

tanyabansal599

Tuesday, Jul 27 2021

Exactly @Elizabeth8 - I have the same understanding (comment above).

PrepTests ·

PT146.S4.P1.Q2

tanyabansal599

Tuesday, Jul 27 2021

#help Question 2 - AC (B) versus (D)

I went for AC (B) because the way I read the passages, understanding of the laws is implied.

Author of passage A says that reasonable people can disagree about the reach of laws - an activity that would obviously involve understanding the law, because if you don't even understand the law, how the hell can you understand its reach? - just that jury isn't the place to do so. Moreover, A is saying that juries aren't elected officials with ability to "interpret laws" (line 25) as pointed out by another 7Sager below. So clearly, author of A doesn't seem to be convinced by the ability of juries to understand the laws.

Similarly, B says that legislatures can't always anticipate the specific circumstances that arise with respect to the general laws they pass, so juries perform a helpful role by nullifying and hence, pointing out that there is an issue with the existing law. Again, doesn't this involve understanding the law?

Moreover, for AC (D) I didn't feel that B talks about exercising their power in a just manner. Sure, the diversity provided by the backgrounds of the respective constituents of the jury helps eliminate biases, but where does the passage say anything about a jury behaving justly?

PrepTests ·

PT107.S1.Q16

tanyabansal599

Monday, Jul 26 2021

#help

"some" in AC (B) could mean that out of the thousands of languages that have existed / exist, one does not have a word for prominent environmental features. So, there is a 1/1000 likelihood that PIE is such a language.

Is that not a bigger assumption, than say, assuming that fish came from sea or oceans?

Recurring problem with the word "some" in tricky wrong ACs

PrepTests ·

PT110.S2.Q17

tanyabansal599

Monday, Jul 26 2021

#help why is AC (C) incorrect - didn't JY say that one of the two ways to weaken the conclusion by analogy is to show that the lab rats study doesn't apply to or translate to humans?

I agree that the choice of wording makes it unattractive but what if the AC straight up said something along the lines of "Scientific studies relating to eating habits conducted on lab animals have been shown to be irrelevant or even contrary for the human experience."

Then, the analogy breaks down and the conclusion is therefore weakened. Thoughts?

PrepTests ·

PT148.S1.Q12

tanyabansal599

Thursday, Jul 22 2021

Agreed. I was also stuck between A and C. What helped me eliminate A was your second reason - the phrase "moving into the area" . So cool, the newly arrived wolves will prevent new predator guys (if we are charitably assuming moose predators). Does nothing to explain why existing moose grew. See, it would be different if the hypo gave us something like the wolves scared off existing predators.