User Avatar
tigerlily
Joined
Jan 2026
Subscription
Live

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 180
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

PrepTests ·
PT150.S4.P2.Q14
User Avatar
tigerlily
5 days ago

@ehritchin495 this is the exact q I had and i find this explanation super helpful. To crystallize it further by applying that distinction to the ACs.:

My interpretation is that AC B is in line with the info in the passage. As ehritchin495 says, "adults are bad at telling you how they think". I think this is reasonably equatable to AC B "Adults are more likely than children to give inaccurate reports of their thought processes."

But that doesn't matter, because the question is NOT "what is inferable from the passage" it is "what is inferable about why they chose kids for the experiment". It is not clear how adults being bad at describing how they think would make them bad test subjects per se, because the benefit the kids gave was that they made errors in identifying their own thought. Not that they were especially good at describing their thought process relative to adults (we honestly don't even really know if that's true from the info in the passage).

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P2.Q10
User Avatar
tigerlily
5 days ago

@Steve that's helpful, thank you!

2
PrepTests ·
PT130.S2.P3.Q15
User Avatar
tigerlily
6 days ago

@RR2002 I agree with you. Copyright is a subset of IP protection. So the textual support "every copyrightable work" is narrower/different than the AC "any work entitled to intellectual-property protection". (for example, trademarking a slogan is a type of IP protection, but distinct from copyright).

BUT (and it's a big but) -- the other ACs are clearly and indefensibly wrong. I've seen a couple of other qs like this, where the right answer is a little sloppy. The important thing is to get rid of the unpalatable answers, and if there's one left that you hate but it's palatable, it's right.

1
PrepTests ·
PT147.S4.Q21
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 24

I understand why AC C is required, but I'm not sure why AC B is not.

Stim:

engineering = only thing capable of analyzing the nature of the machine in terms of the successful working of the whole.

physics and chemistry (1) can determine the material conditions needed for this success BUT (2) cannot express the notion of purpose [success].

physiology = only thing capable of analyzing the nature of the organism in terms of the healthy functioning [successful working] of the body [whole].

physics and chemistry cannot grasp the way organs operate [GAPS: (1) ____ (2) ___ ]

AC B. physics and chemistry can determine the material conditions needed for good physiological functioning.

this is trying to match (1) can determine the material conditions needed for this success

does "good physiological functioning" = "successful working of the whole"

I think so, at least in the analogy, because it also seems to equate "healthy functioning of the body" to "successful working of the whole". And "good physiological functioning" seems pretty similar to "healthy functioning of the body"

AC C. The notion of purpose used to judge success of machinery has an analog in organisms.

If that's not true, then there's no way the physiology analogy can fulfill physics and chem (2) , so I can see how this is a required assumption.

1
PrepTests ·
PT147.S4.Q14
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 24

I think AC C strengthens a little, but AC D clearly strengthens more.

S: in 80% of recordings w parent singing to their infant v no infant, psychologists could identify.

C: Correct that parents' emotion while singing to their infants noticeable affects the sound of their singing.

AC C. displayed little emotion when singing to no infant.

I think this moderately strengthens by ruling out the scenario in which parents displayed a LOT of emotion when singing to no infant, making it more feasible that they FELT a lot of emotion when singing to no infant.

AC D. When someone feels emotion, they have an involuntary response that impacts the vocal chords.

This provides a causal mechanism by which the support may have led to the conclusion, that strengthens a lot.

1
PrepTests ·
PT147.S1.Q10
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 24

I understand why A, B, D, and E don't strengthen the argument. However, I'm stuck on how C can be right when it doesn't seem to strengthen the bond between the support and conclusion (which I'm under the impression, from lessons and other q's explanations, is necessary for a strengthen AC to be right).

The argument:

S: More sunlight reflected means cooler atmosphere.

S: Snow and ice reflect more sunlight than ocean and uncovered land.

C: More of Earth's surface covered with snow and ice means cooler atmosphere.

AC C: Ocean and land heated by sunlight actually warm the Earth's atmosphere.

I can see how this would strengthen the conclusion by giving another way that more snow and ice coverage --> cooler atmosphere. But I do not see how it strengthens the bond between the support and the conclusion.

1
User Avatar
•

Wednesday, May 20

tigerlily

💪 Motivated

Being judicious about when to skim

I have a pattern of getting qs wrong lately that I’m labeling as ‘forehead slap’, where I skim the stim, ACs, or relevant passage portion a tad too quickly, miss a crucial word, and pick wrong — then groan when I come back in blind review.

On the one hand, the easy solution is to go slower — read the stim very carefully, make sure read all ACs, etc.

But I’m struggling to find the balance between skimming enough to keep a good pace but preventing these ‘forehead slap’ mistakes. For context, I’m usually about right on time for both LR and RC, with a little wiggle room for reviewing + spending more time on harder qs, but definitely not enough to never skim.

Does anyone have any tips for this? Being judicious on what to skim within a q, which qs to skim more or less, keeping mental discipline when reading, etc.

For context, this is usually ~1-3 Qs a preptest (I’m averaging ~2-5 Qs wrong total, so this is a pretty high proportion)

thanks!!

1
PrepTests ·
PT101.S3.Q23
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, May 19

I think if I had viewed this as an NA I would have gotten it right, but since it was a MS I overlooked AC B as too narrow to be much help.

Looking back, if I think that AC B is indeed a NA, then having it would be pretty helpful to argument. After all, by adding it you eliminate the scary world where you it's false (in which case the argument would be invalid).

It is pretty narrow, so if there had been an AC that went further to strengthen that could have been right, but that isn't the case with these ACs.

1
Lessons · Intersecting Sets
User Avatar
tigerlily
Edited Tuesday, May 19

@CamilleHodgkins I was going to make this exact comment. I think the key is whether we're talking about just the set of birds that migrates in the fall, or the set of birds that migrates in the fall and (separately) the set of birds that returns in the spring.

Rephrasings to illustrate the difference:

one set (subsumed)

"Many of the birds that migrate south in the fall do not return in the spring"

two sets

"Many birds that migrate south in the fall are not the same as those who return in the spring."

To me, the current phrasing seems nearly identical to the former (indicating that there is one set of birds we're concerned with -- those that migrate south in the fall, and then of those some don't return). So, I think the visual in the video is inaccurate.

1
PrepTests ·
PT138.S1.P3.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, May 19

This is a q where I needed to read the AC more closely -- and should have been tipped off to do so by the fact that both D and C seemed somewhat reasonable

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P2.Q10
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 17

I chose C by eliminating the other answer qs, but I think it requires a not insignificant assumption: that the author thinks usually firms shouldn't be put out of business. All the text says is that the "astronomical penalties" might put the convicted companies out of business, and that this is reason to add another criterion.

But couldn't it be that the author thinks it's sometimes justified for the company to be put out of business (say, if the community opinion of the crime is particularly drastic, or the company doesn't employ very many workers)?

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P1.Q7
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 17

@embino This was my main struggle with this q. That said, looking back there are multiple references to geographic range:

  • the units were "in cities spread throughout the United States"

  • discussion of folk dramas exploring rural themes vs urban realistic dramas.

  • "reflected the genuine diversity of African American artists and their audiences nationwide."

I think this is enough to make C the strongest answer. Still though, it seems like the more textually supported interpretation is national meaning reflecting the views of African Americans across the nation, not necessarily being physically located anywhere in particular.

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S1.P1.Q1
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 17

I understand why C is the best answer but I'm a little caught up on the "now being recognized for the pivotal role.." portion of it.

The textual support for this is "One of the most important, though until recently little-studied, legacies of the program were its "Negro Units,"..."

I don't think the fact that the Negro Units are now being studied more is enough to draw the conclusion that they are now 'being recognized for the pivotal role.."

1
PrepTests ·
PT145.S2.Q7
User Avatar
tigerlily
Sunday, May 17

Main reason I got this wrong was because I skimmed over "normal-looking" and was overly focused on expecting to see something closer to the assumption I saw in the argument.

I do think C marginally strengthens (see below), but it's clear that E strengthens much more so E is clearly correct.

Working through the question:

S: Amber is more valuable when it has fossilized life forms.

S: Forgers often embed normal-looking insects into fake amber to improve its value.

C: Amber pieces are more likely to be fake if they have normal looking insects than if they do not.

Assumption:

[sidebar -- the 7sage analysis says the assumption is "real pieces of amber sold as amber are not as likely to contain normal-appearing insects as are forged amber pieces", I think it's more accurately described as 'your chances of the amber being real are worse with normal-appearing insects than any other situation (plants, nothing, etc.)"

  • This difference is material, imagine the following reality:

total # fake amber: 10

# fake amber w insects: 8

total # real amber: 100

# real amber w insects: 10

In this situation, it's true that real pieces are not as likely to contain insects (10%) as fake pieces are (80%), but if you have a piece of amber with an insect, it's still more likely to be real (10/18 = ~56%) than fake (8/18 = ~44%).

In other words, the assumption as phrased by 7sage would be filled, but the gap in the argument would still exist.]

AC A. no -- doesn't make it any more likely that amber w insects is fake vs real relative to amber w/o insects.

AC B. no, irrelevant

AC C. I think this DOES make it slightly more likely that amber w insects fake vs real relative to amber w/o insects. We're trying to compare the following two numbers. The stim assumes that 1 is larger than 2.

  1. Amber w [normal looking] insects; chance it's fake

  2. Amber w/o [normal looking] insects (plain, plant life, etc); chance it's fake

AC C takes out the possibility that plants are more valuable than insects, which--if it was true-- would make it on the margin more likely that forgers would embed plants. If that meant that a BUNCH of the amber w/o insects has plants, and MOST/ all of that is fake, then the second number is looking pretty high. Makes it more likely it's higher than 1.

THAT SAID, you can see from all the italicized words I've put in here, this doesn't strengthen it much at all. requires a ton more leaps.

AC D. irrelevant.

AC E. This essentially makes the first # (Amber w NORMAL LOOKING insects; chance it's fake) super high, say 90%. Because the real amber would (usually) have grotesquely positioned insects. Without other info about #2, it's a pretty strong case that your chances of it being fake for that group are lower than 80%.

This strengthens the most, is correct.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, May 12

@_ On AC B, you say that it effectively equated two statements:

AC "the loss of motivation that results from pessimistic beliefs about the future"

Passage: "this pessimism is probably harmful to humanity's future, because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable."

First off, this isn't the part of AC B that's filling the gap in the argument -- it's just a summarizing a relationship in the passage. That said, I agree that if it was misstating that relationship that'd be a red flag. I don't think it is.

It's saying that pessimistic beliefs about the future --> loss of motivation.

I think the relevant passage excerpt includes the first sentence in addition to the two you had, so in total: "Young people believe efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and war are doomed to failure. This pessimism is probably harmful to humanity's future, because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable."

Combining the first sentence and the last phrase: ppl lose motivation when they think goals are unrealizable. + young ppl believe xyz efforts are doomed to fail. --> young people losing motivation.

The second sentence refers to 'young ppl believing efforts as doomed to fail' as "this pessimism", so using their own labelling, this equates to the pessimism --> loss of motivation.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, May 12

@_

I think your mapping makes a false equalization of the passage sentence/its gap to AC A:

You state that the passage sentence can be mapped as: (prevent loss motivation) -> (believe better future possible). but the passage merely states the premise (prevent loss motivation) and the conclusion (believe better future possible). the connection is the exact gap we're trying to fill. We're trying to find an AC that says if we want to prevent loss motivation, then we have to enable our kids to believe a better future is possible.

Can AC A fill this gap? you map AC A as (prevent loss motivation) -> (believe better future possible) and (less pessimism). That makes it look like it can fill that gap. But in reality, it's saying that working to improve motivation will lead to enabling kids to believe in a better future. Materially different than the "if we want to prevent loss motivation, then we have to enable our kids to believe a better future is possible" gap we're looking for.

An alternate mapping to make this clear might be:

Gap: want to prevent motivation loss --> must enable kids' belief.

AC A: preventing motivation loss --> enable kids' belief.

Additionally, since this is a NA q, it's crucial that AC A goes further by adding in the "and (less pessimism)" -- that alone could probably make this AC wrong, because it goes beyond what's necessary

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S4.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, May 12

Arg pt 1

P: Young ppl think xyz initiatives are doomed. (ie pessimism)

P: Ppl lose motivation to work for things they think are doomed.

Subs Concl: This (pessimism) is probably harmful for humantiy.

GAP: young ppl losing motivation to work for xyz initiatives is probably harmful for humanity.

Arg pt 2

P: Must do what we can to prevent this motivation loss

C: Must enable our kids to believe that better futures are possible

GAP: If we want to prevent this motivation loss, we must enable our kids to believe better future is possible (i.e. enabling kids will help prevent it).

ACs

AC A: Motivating ppl --> they're enabled to believe better future --> less pessimistic.

This doesn't help connect the premises with the conclusions either for arg part 1 or arg part 2.

  • for part 2, it does seem related. but closer inspection reveals it is likely not sufficient and certainly not necessary: says adding in motivation (could interpret this as preventing motivation loss, altho a bit of a stretch) will enable ppl to believe, which kind of sounds like the gap in arg part 2, except it's the wrong way round. It's saying preventing motivation loss leads to enabling, but we need smtg that says the way to prevent motivation loss is to enable. it also adds in how that motivating will --> less pessimism, which is unnecessary.

AC B: Enabling will help prevent loss of motivation.

  • this closely matches the arg pt 2 gap. It's narrower, since it just says enabling will "help" rather than saying it must be done, but that's fine for a NA q. Can see this if you negate it:

    • "Enabling will not help prevent loss of motivation." Really hard for that to be true and for the argument that: 'we must prevent motivation loss so therefore we must enable our kids" to hold.

1
PrepTests ·
PT141.S1.P4.Q27
User Avatar
tigerlily
Edited Tuesday, May 12

@emilyrroberts I've been working through similar confusions, here's where I've gotten to.

Definitions to help:

• Argument (in the context of LSAT at least) requires a premise and conclusion.

• View is a way of seeing things (less rigid).

On Passage A:

• Doesn't clearly meet the bar of presenting or adopting an argument -- where's the conclusion?

• So, AC D ("briefly stat(ing) a view and then provid(ing) an argument for it") goes too far.

○ In terms of your q "is (D) saying that Passage A is describing an argument or actually subscribing to/supporting that argument?" -- I'd lean that 'providing' an argument is closer to adopting it than describing, but I don't think it's clear and it doesn't have to be for AC D to be wrong (because Passage A doesn't clearly do either).

On Passage B:

• Clearly contains an argument (clear premise and conclusion in the last paragraph). Not exactly clear whether the author believes the argument as described. Does express a view/views.

○ I think this addresses your q on the distinction between Passage B providing a "detailed statement of a view but no argument" versus "sketch(ing) an argument that it does not necessarily endorse."

2
PrepTests ·
PT141.S2.Q12
User Avatar
tigerlily
Monday, May 11

@RobertCarlson It makes sense to me why "consent" and "consult" don't have to equate for SA. But it does have to be true, as you state, that "consent requires consultation" and I don't know why that's true. Dictionary definition of "consult" is something like 'seek the opinion or guidance of'. I can see a world in which most of the members gave their consent without a consultation taking place -- say the chair never sought out their opinion, but they still mailed over a thumbs up on the report's release.

1
PrepTests ·
PT132.S2.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, Apr 28

@tigerlily would love thoughts/help if this seems incorrect at all.

1
PrepTests ·
PT132.S2.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, Apr 28

I agree with AC D in this q, but have a point of clarification in JY's explanation of the stim (and a point that some tutors have made in the comments). JY references in the explanation how X -most-> Y -most-> Z does not imply that X <-some-> Z. I agree with that generally, but I don't think that's true for this question because of the phrasing "of those" in the stim.

The stim says: "most pet stores sell birds, and most of those that sell birds also sell fish." I think the most reasonable interpretation is that "those" references the pet stores that sell birds. Thus it's saying that "of pet stores, most sell birds. and of pet stores that sell birds, most sell fish."

More like X-most-> Y, within the subset of YX -most-> Z.

Which I think you can draw inferences from. Namely that at least some pet stores must sell fish.

Versus if the stim said "Most pet stores sell birds. Most bird-selling stores also sell fish." Then it could be that while most pet stores sell birds, they are a tiny fraction of bird-selling stores (imagine every gas station inexplicable sells birds on the side but isn't classified as a pet store). So nothing can be concluded about how many pet stores sell fish.

1
PrepTests ·
PT132.S2.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, Apr 28

@RobertCarlson This explanation of X-most-> Y -most-> Z generally makes sense to me. My impression however is that the phrasing in this particular stimulus denotes a different relationship.

The stim says: "most pet stores sell birds, and most of those that sell birds also sell fish." I think the most reasonable interpretation is that "those" references the pet stores that sell birds. Thus it's saying that "of pet stores, most sell birds. and of pet stores that sell birds, most sell fish."

More like X-most-> Y, within the subset of YX -most-> Z.

Versus in your example the sets stay completely separate:

"Most students who graduate from Beijing International High School will attend college in the United States.

Most college students in the United States were born in the United States."

To make it analogous you'd have to rephrase to something like:

"Of the students who graduate Beijing Int HS, most will attend college in the US. Of those students (Beijing Int HS grads who attend college in the US), most were born in the US."

1
PrepTests ·
PT132.S2.Q19
User Avatar
tigerlily
Tuesday, Apr 28

@nycxchi I don't think you need to assume that all pet stores in W Calv are independently owned to have D be correct.

The logic for D (in plain English) is:

Stim says that no ind. owned pet stores sell gerbils. Also says that any pet store (including ind. owned) that sells 'fish + no birds' must sell gerbils.

So it'd be impossible for an ind. owned pet store to sell 'fish + no birds", because that would necessitate it selling gerbils, and ind. owned pet store sells gerbils.

1
PrepTests ·
PT139.S4.Q9
User Avatar
tigerlily
Friday, Apr 24

@tigerlily ok one way I can make B make sense:

If you read "plants" as truly referring to the broad category of plants, then AC B could read as: the people at the site used some plants in ways that no other people did at the time -- i.e. the people used plants X,Y,Z,A,B,D,E all in their diets. No other groups used that exact subset of plants in their diets. Thus, they used some (subset) of plants in a way distinct from any other group, even if they didn't necessarily use any individual plant distinctly.

2
PrepTests ·
PT139.S4.Q9
User Avatar
tigerlily
Edited Friday, Apr 24

@SparkleSpice4 this was my exact thought process. I ended up between AC B, with this as my main reservation, and AC D. Fwiw, I landed on AC B because AC D seemed 'more wrong in a way the test takers care about' -- more of an argumentation error than a semantic linguistic error. That said, I'm not very convinced by that reasoning and would love anyone with a better reasoning as to why AC B is the best answer.

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?