Subscription pricing
Im an international student and has no experience in Lsat. Wonder how long should I prepare with 7Sage to take my first exam.
PT Questions
tzhu058
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
tzhu058
Wednesday, Oct 30 2024
I chose D because I mistook "someone" as an indicator of intersection logic like "some."
My takeaway:
Intersection logic (like "some") refers to the overlap or shared characteristics between two groups (e.g., some A are B), while this statement sets up a strict dependency: only those who satisfy condition A can perform B, creating a necessary link rather than an overlap or subset intersection.
tzhu058
Sunday, Oct 27 2024
P - Humans choose how they behave. (they have voluntary action)
SC - Human action has a psychological explanation.
MC- So pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past.
Two gaps:
1. Premise ---> Intermediate Conclusion
2. Intermediate Conclusion ---> Main Conclusion
AC B resolves the first gap: Negating AC B - If voluntary actions could have chemical explanations, then the argument couldn't say that psychological factors were taking over the role. Potentially, the behavior could then be explained chemically.
tzhu058
Saturday, Oct 26 2024
If correctly addressed, then arrive within 2 days: CA -> 2 or less
Most mails arrive 3 or more days: Mails -most-> /2 or less -> /CA = Mails -most-> /CA
tzhu058
Wednesday, Mar 26
The reason that I think AC A does not have an effect on the discrepancy:
The first sentence tells us that "conscientiousness is high on most firms' list." The fact that more people are fired due to shirking work responsibility and out there looking for jobs DOES NOT make this group of people a better choice for employers. Who employers like more and prone to hire are still those conscientious workers.
tzhu058
Tuesday, Mar 25
being higher leads to being larger here, because the dam under discussion is "ARCH dam."
tzhu058
Friday, Oct 18 2024
My takeaway: something being a necessary condition does NOT mean it is the only one necessary condition.
Simplified Stimulus:
- 1st doctrine holds X->Y: Y is necessary for X
- 2nd doctrine holds X->Z: Z is necessary for X
- Main Premise: there is X both containing Y & Z
- Conclusion: Both two doctrines are wrong.
From the main premise, we can get the subtle assumption the author made is that "1st/2nd doctrine means Y/Z is the only necessary for X, no other possible necessary conditions existed." Therefore, when the author found out that some X does have more than one necessary condition, which is the example of the X containing both Y & Z, he concluded both doctrines are wrong.
I didn't like AC A at first because, as Kevin said, it only offers a part of the NA for this argument, i.e., NA for the first doctrine. But we cannot deny that it is still an NA, and the argument does need it to hold. So just remember, a correct AC for NA question does not have to include all NA required for the argument.
tzhu058
Thursday, Oct 17 2024
My takeaway - Interpretation of Partial Distribution:
When an argument states "O does not give every X every Y," it is important to recognize that it doesn't mean O gives Y to some X completely; it could also mean no X is given Y completely or that different Xs got partial Y.
The flaw often assumes that if not everyone got everything, then someone must have gotten it all, which is not necessarily true. Always watch out for this misinterpretation of partial distribution.
tzhu058
Sunday, Oct 13 2024
Regarding the normative claim in AC A:
Should signals a normative claim, which involves a value judgment or recommendation.
Expressions like the best way or the most effective option also imply a value judgment, though in a slightly different form. When you say, "the best way to achieve X is by doing A," you're implicitly evaluating A as superior to other alternatives based on some standard, such as efficiency or effectiveness in achieving X. This involves judgment, since you're deciding what makes something "best" or "most effective," and this judgment is based on the goals or values of the person making the claim.
--- Credit to ChatGPT :)
tzhu058
Saturday, Oct 12 2024
I can now see the author's arrangement of this passage much more clearly, thanks to this explanation video.
I thought the author consistently agreed with the opinions of criminologists. I have just come to realize how much the author criticizes them, and instead of appealing to criminologists, he independently proposes the rehab as a solution. RC is killing me.
tzhu058
Saturday, Oct 12 2024
For #7, I chose AC D at first and changed to C during BR.
Both AC C and D are mentioned as potential explanations in the last paragraph. I prefer the wording "might" in AC D because it is more consistent with the author's viewpoint. But the description of Goldcrests' "nocturnal behavior" makes me uneasy during BR because it requires me to draw the assumption that Goldcrests forage at night...
After rethinking how I should deal with this question, I suppose it is by POE/eliminating AC C because it presents the claim in such an absolute manner that the author is unlikely to agree with it.
tzhu058
Friday, Oct 11 2024
Q11: I chose AC C. Here's why I am incorrect.
For AC C, I did ask myself what the exact written equivalent they are using to preserve oral language was, but only found that it was not explicitly stated in the passage. I then assumed that words from modern and majority cultures could be tools for them, based on my limited experience.
For AC E, I mistook deliberate for decide. Though the passage suggests they decided not to standardize the dialect, they actually gave it some thought (deliberation) before making this decision.
tzhu058
Thursday, Oct 10 2024
The main reason I chose AC D was I mistook the last sentence for the main conclusion... Would have been better to understand the author's point of view and pay closer attention to the argument's structure.
tzhu058
Wednesday, Oct 09 2024
I was really stuck with the larger, more apparent assumption and never gave it much thought that there might be many more, smaller assumptions.
This is a strengthening question. So be open-minded!
tzhu058
Wednesday, Oct 09 2024
How AC C works here to strengthen the argument:
1. strengthen by affirming the premise: we can infer from AC C that the increased reports are all about small-size tornadoes. This can support the premise that we currently have better tech to detect them. (We need an assumption or maybe common sense that smaller the tornado is, more advanced tech will be required to detect it.)
2. strengthen by denying the alternative explanation: the alternative explanation is that the actual number does increase. If this is true, then the number of reported large and medium-sized tornadoes should have increased (because, based on the same assumption above, large and medium-sized tornadoes can be easily detected throughout years, including the 1950s.) This alternative reality is denied by AC C.
tzhu058
Wednesday, Oct 09 2024
I am really bothered by the ctx here. If this is a flaw question, can we say that the argument fails to validly refute the critics' claim with justification?
#feedback #help
tzhu058
Tuesday, Oct 08 2024
There are two flaws:
1. As AC A says, the argument fails the stated requirement because AS IF they had been repeated 1,000 times =/= they actually being repeated many times
2. Even if the first flaw is fixed, the argument is still flawed by mistaking the necessary condition for sufficient. The stimulus only says, "to be effective -> must repeat." Whereas the argument concludes, "because it repeats -> then effective."
tzhu058
Sunday, Apr 06
Compromise can mean "to cause the impairment of ..."
tzhu058
Friday, Oct 04 2024
For the last analogy question, I chose AC B. Now I see the reason it is wrong.
AC B describes a policy of decreasing the product price, which benefits the public by making the product more affordable. The second part of it, however, is only a naturally occurring following the policy rather than a restriction imposed by the design of the policy.
In contrast to AC C, the second clause—"they are prevented from rising to a certain level"—is more akin to a policy-imposed restriction.
tzhu058
Friday, Oct 04 2024
For the MP question, I chose AC E. I read the last paragraph incorrectly, thinking the author was pleading for efforts to find a solution. A second look reveals that, rather than making his own recommendation, the author has continued to describe the problem and provides more specifics about how to respond.
tzhu058
Thursday, Oct 03 2024
For #27, it's not a weakening question; otherwise, AC A would also somewhat wreck passage A's argument.
The question stem reads "the most reasonable response for the author of passage B to make to the final argument of passage A." I think it's better to take the most reasonable response as for author of passage B to clarify and justify the phenomenon described in the final argument of passage A. According to this reading of the question stem, AC B could be a correction to the alleged cause of a phenomenon.
tzhu058
Wednesday, Oct 02 2024
#18, we can imply the fear of wilderness from the "possession of a concept of wilderness." - - ||
#18: logic for a definition should be bi-conditional, am i right?
#help