Self-study
I find tutor responses in the comment sections for specific questions really helpful. It would be great if I had the option to filter to see only those when I got to the comment section.
visschdawg
- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
LSAT
162
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2027
Discussions
visschdawg
Edited 5 days ago
Here I fell for a common trap: first half good, second half bad. “Legal authority” was exactly what I was looking for, but “to determine what actions are crimes” is not descriptively accurate. In the situation, we already know a crime was committed. It is the “legal authority to penalize individuals for illegal acts” that we need.
visschdawg
6 days ago
I had it down between (C) and (D), although I interpreted (C) in a different way. I didn't assume that (C) was strictly speaking of nocturnal behavior but instead behavior during the day as well of which we know:
Kinglets flock in groups of twos and threes during the day
I eliminated (C) on the basis that we have no idea the way that these bird communicate, it could just as well be through vision or scent, because the author does not indicate anything about it. Important for questions like this to remove outside assumptions.
visschdawg
Edited 6 days ago
Got confused since I thought (E) was only 50% accurate. Yes, the opponent introduces a more effective way to sanitize food, but it doesn't point out that gamma rays have negative effects.
After swapping the order of the opponents claims to this:
Salmonella and the bacteria that cause botulism/harmful diseases can easily be killed in poultry by using a safe chemical dip. The irradiation process has no effect on the bacteria that cause botulism while those that cause bad odors that would warn consumers of botulism are killed.
I see that the opponent has an implied conclusion that the dip is better by cost/benefit analysis, making it more clearly that his main point is to introduce this alternate method.
visschdawg
Wednesday, May 27
(C) is wrong because throughout the passage the author discusses how the Draft Articles are meant to be a springboard for other more specific agreements.
"Uniform" is too strong in this case.
visschdawg
Edited Tuesday, May 26
@amytorres I narrowed it down to (A) and (D) myself.
(D) says:
everyone believes in X --> X exists
/X exist --> /everyone believes in X (contraposed)
We know from the premises that:
universal loss of belief in money --> money disappear
"Everyone" contraposed is "not everyone" (or 0-99% of people). Universal loss of belief implies 0%.
However, even if we could chain these two up, the sufficiency and necessary conditions would still be swapped. We need to show that because "money could disappear" it "never really existed." So, we want an assumption that ends up at "/exist" not starts with it.
visschdawg
Thursday, May 21
In my experience, one day is all you need especially if you're taking it in person and do not need to set up a space at home to take it remotely.
As far as prep, I like thinking about it like I am preparing for a race. I do a "mini test", or a small set of LR and RC questions that might be representative of the actual test, and then tapper for the rest of the day. I also like writing down on a piece of paper my general approach to questions and things I want to be thinking of when taking it. Definitely get a good night's rest and eat healthy foods for dinner and breakfast. I think everyone has their own ways of preparing and taking it is a good way of figuring what yours are.
visschdawg
Thursday, May 21
@rattlesnakefolktale the florentine example is talking about how standards were enforced rather than what the standards were. If (E) said: "The ENFORCEMENT standards of medieval guilds varied from one city to another," I think then it would be correct
visschdawg
Wednesday, May 20
Typo alert #embarrasing
“Rhetoric” in this context seems designed to emphasize that historians have science have only talked about unifying issues, but haven’t actually done so.
visschdawg
Friday, May 15
I immediately thought an explanation for this phenomenon is that the adults who from home (WFH) are the primary chefs of dinners for the adults who do not work from home (dWFH).
Therefore, the dWFH crowd would still have access to the same nutritional values, menus and courses with averaging less time overall.
However, this is did not show up cleanly in the ACs so I tried to force it on (C) which does not make that connection and would require a big jump in order to do so.
visschdawg
Sunday, May 10
The easiest way for me to think about this question is that the conclusion is saying: "an important part of maintaining a healthy back is exercising each side of the back EQUALLY."
It is supported by saying: "BALANCED muscle development is needed to maintain a healthy back"
Now think about all those people who are right handed. Their right side is much stronger than their left. By making the jump from BALANCED DEVELOPMENT to get EQUALLY strong sides over your back, the author is assuming a baseline, when in fact it could be the case that one's left side is weaker, so they need to exercise it more.
(B) responds by saying that exercising opposite sides unequally still tends to result in an unbalance, eliminating this potential issue with the jump between premise and conclusion.
visschdawg
Monday, May 4
This is what I get when trying to predict the correct AC...
I went hunting for something like "If apes possessed the ability to ask philosophical questions, they would have asked them by now."
I then forced (E) to fit that template in my head, when in fact it does not mean the same thing. Difficulty does not mean ability.
(C) is clearly correct since in protects the conclusion against dolphin philosophers, as JY said.
Anywho, the lesson from getting this easy one wrong is to not jump into the ACs with a correct answer in mind for these NAs, or at the very least, be flexible.
visschdawg
Sunday, May 3
The wording in the conclusion got me here. It was such a gentle recommendation. I think I would have gotten this right if it said instead of "Farmers should abandon tilling and employ no-till methods instead"
I thought "strive to incorporate" meant they could still be tilling deeply but use some parts of the deep till method, like till less frequently than they are currently.
I do however see how (A) is wrong now.
visschdawg
Saturday, May 2
What made this question difficult for me is that I felt the discussion regarding whether maximizing profits is inherently good is left out of (A).
That is why I skipped it in my first pass. It felt like only part of what our author was saying.
However, after reading (B) through (E), it is clear that (A) is the only choice that remotely grasps what the author is trying to say.
Also, for questions like these, when all of the AC' have the same structure, I like to read what comes after the introductory clause. Reducing it to the latter half makes answering much quicker and easier:
A. [legal] obligation does not free [CEOs] from the moral responsibility of considering the implications of the corporations' actions for the public good. - yes
B. corporations can be said to have an obligation to act morally in the sense that they are made up of individuals who must act morally. - no
C. a CEO's true obligation is still to seek a profit for the corporation's owners. - no
And so forth
visschdawg
Friday, May 1
Making a decision to join the EU wouldn't limit the power of parliament because we know that parliament cannot limit its own power (that is a pillar of England's constitution).
Therefore, (C) is right. If Parliament could not leave the EU at any time, their power would be limited, meaning that joining in the first place would not be possible.
visschdawg
Monday, Apr 27
This sentence is used to the support the claim made in the previous one:
However, as long as a knowledgeable observer cannot find any fault with the legal reasoning provided, then there are no grounds for complaint.
It supports it by essentially saying "no harm no foul - that's the way things are according to the law"
(A) yes, this is part of the law
(B) no, it is not "part of a definition" here and it does not relate to the "function" of the law. It is a pillar, a part of it. A definition of the law (as shown earlier in the passage) is something like "law is meant to reduce crime." This is not that.
I had it down between (A) and (E) and eventually chose the incorrect option. It came down to choosing the option with the weaker language, but here that actually serves as a detriment to (E) because it makes the umbrella too big.
Saying that “common law does not recognize the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed” is a sweeping claim. First, we are talking about common law versus blackmail-related law. Second, it is saying authorities don’t want to incentivize the release of any info. Think about how we have incentives throughout our legal system that encourage people to share information to assist with cases, it seems likely this is the authorities' interests.