- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
took me a while but i did get D. on parallel reasoning/flaw i have trouble pinpointing the reasoning down the way that the lsat does.
ex: the way i identified the reasoning in the stim was something like "change isn't bad, it's about the rate at which change occurs". which i don't think is inaccurate but when evaluating the answer choices it was difficult because nothing really matched that.
the "proper" way would've been to id like "change isn't necessarily bad, it's about how it's carried out" which if you have that in mind makes D easier to spot imo.
idk how to fix this
Feels shitty when you can correctly identify the flaw but can't comb through the language of the AC's to select the right one
i understand the stimulus and why the correct answer is correct after watching the video and reading the explanations but im still concerned. i think that if i were to do another question exactly like this one i wouldn't be able to figure it out. it just feels beyond me. i would never think to separate out "authors who write to give pleasure" and "books that give pleasure" and the way the correct answer was worded is hard for me to parse out
process of elimination ftw my god.
did not understand the correct answer but i just a long time to diagram out the stim to see if the other AC's triggered the conditional chain.
I don't get why E is wrong. Even though "serious harm" is not the same as "harm" in general, doesn't it still fall within the parameters of the rules given in the stimulus?If we follow the rule established in the stimulus, wouldn't E be a true statement?
can someone explain what C is actually saying to me I don't understand either the video or text explanation
i lowk didn't understand what i was reading but i just looked for any AC that talked ab "the welfare of others" and picked that
For me parallel flaw/reasoning is one of my weakest question categories on the lsat not because I cannot solve them, I'm just very slow. I am so slow that when I encounter one on a section or preptest I am better off guessing and skipping rather than wasting the little time I have on it. When I do drills where I have unlimited time I think generally I get them right 80-90% of the time.
My current approach is to diagram the stimulus out on paper and then check each answer choice to see if it matches the structure and form of the stimulus. It's especially tricky for me when the form of the stimulus and correct AC are different because I have a hard time abstracting in my head.
I've been trying to improve by drilling more. I do something like 5 questions at a time medium to hardest difficulty with unlimited time. I think I've gotten better at getting these questions right, but not any better at improving my speed.
Does anyone have advice/tips?
Overlooked look the correct answer on Q4 because I thought that it was more explicit than implicit, could someone explain why that isn't the case. As I understand it implicit is supposed to be not directly stated but from reading the stim I didn't interpret it as such.
hold on how is frequent or interferes chained to modernize when it's only frequent that is linked to modernize within the stimulus? how is this not in violation with lawgic rules
A was actually my first instinct but I thought that smokers who drink caffeine (Group 1) being less likely to develop heart diseases than those who don't (Group 2) wouldn't really change much because it could still be really high for both and thus a positive correlation. Ex: chances for Group 1 are 99% and group 2 are 100% it's still lower but still high enough for a positive correlation no? Or am I misunderstanding how we determine positive correlation.
youre supposed to approach the lsat with the mindset that there is only one right answer and every other answer is definitely wrong. but how am i supposed to do that when there's AC's like A. even with the explanation given for why A is wrong and B is right, i find it difficult to accept that A is wrong.
I chose E initially but on my blind review I chose D instead. The way I thought about it was that in AC D, 2 new crimes were classified as violent, so "What if those 2 new crimes decreased dramatically for whatever reason and brought down the overall percentage of violent crime rate?". The reason why I felt unsure about my answer E is because it requires the assumption that more police = decrease in violent crime, which is a big leap.
this is bullshit bruh i figured out the exact thing e was saying when i read the stimulus but because the way its worded i couldnt put two and two together
If you're having trouble staying focused for even 30 minutes, your difficulties with drilling are more likely a symptom of a larger problem. if I were you i would first figure out what's distracting me. Phone/social media? intrusive thoughts? Poor sleeping habits and vitamin deficiencies?
Once you've identified what's causing the problem figure out a solution that works for you. For example i had trouble getting distracted w my phone so I cut down my use of it in general and when i would study i would put it in a drawer somewhere so I couldn't go reach for it mindlessly.
Can someone explain to me why Question 6 is E. Although the author doesn't necessarily agree with or support the idea in AC E of Question 6, it is something that is frequently discussed throughout the passage and given numerous examples (at least in my interpretation of the text).
hey everyone. I started studying a couple months ago going through the whole curriculum and now I'm just drilling until i take the lsat in approximately a month.
overall i feel pretty good about my RC and some of my LR. but when it comes to anything related to sufficiency necessary, contrapositives, lawgic, diagramming, etc. I feel absolutely hopeless and clueless.
For example, I did PT136.S4.Q20 recently and I got it wrong and when I went to check the correct answer and explanation, I felt so lost. There was nothing I could even write down in my wrong answer journal.
Figuring out what's sufficient what's necessary, taking the contrapositive correctly then diagramming and chaining together conditionals in the stimulus and then doing so for each answer choice. It seems like something I could never do. I just don't even know where to start.
not only does missing these questions and not being able to understand them conceptually hurt my confidence with LR, I feel like its affecting my performance elsewhere. It's massively damaged my confidence in my ability to score well on the LSAT as whole.
I've looked online for resources and help, but every time someone tries to explain these concepts they do it in the easiest way possible that I feel doesn't carry over to the LSAT.
Yes, I am capable of understanding that being a dog is sufficient to being a mammal, and being a mammal is necessary for being a dog. But it's never that simple in an actual question on the LSAT.
i guess my point with this post, besides just venting, is to ask what resources have you found helped you in understanding formal logic, as it relates to questions on the LSAT?
While I understand why D is correct I feel that the line "there are those who are outright dismissive of The Wanderers because it contains an autobiographical framework and is populated with real-world characters." provides support to B and makes it hard for me to be sure that it is wrong.
For those who got the right answer what's the right way to approach this? I got it right out of sheer luck and when I look at this q again i don't know if i can replicate that.
doesn't D incentivize people to dilute, thus strengthening the provision
also how does B strengthen when the stimulus is talking about dumps for hazardous waste and B is talking about if present in the environment. Surely they're diluting it to put it in a dump not to release it in the environment.