Recent Comments
How are we getting from moral to immoral?? #help
Im familiar with racial covenants and this passage was still difficult for me
While AC C strengthens the species-energy hypothesis, there were still issues in the hypothesis that are unaddressed: 1) high production rates can exist with low biomass, and 2) high biomass can exist with few species. AC C only really addresses that last contention ("Moreover, the mechanism proposed... remains untested"), so the species-energy hypothesis isn't enough to weaken/override the rate-of-speciation theory.
I also picked E initially. The reason I decided against it in the end actually is unrelated to the explanation video, and I'm curious if you or others think my rationale makes sense? I thought E was wrong because the time theory is based on precedent to explain a present situation, but it doesn't predict what will happen in the future. E is talking about a future situation. Previous ice ages caused interruptions, but will future ice ages also interrupt the climate?
Regardless if my rationale made sense above, the reason I thought A was stronger was coming from an LR-section perspective. The time theory is saying:
ice age for tropics -c→ /interruption -c→ more time -c→ more species
ice age for other regions -c→ interruption -c→ less time -c→ fewer species
With AC A, no ice ages would impact the other regions. By removing one of the casual factors for those regions having fewer species, it's possible that there could be more species in theory.
RIP to those who don't really know the difference between astrology and astronomy.
Such an easy question but maybe that's because I know exactly what MS is
This would still work without the Demorgan's law applied, wouldn't it?
Principle:
/C oneself or V --> /Cothers
Application:
/V--> /C
What's missing in the application?
/C oneself, we need to see that Shimada does not criticize his/herself.
P1: Not all of Renaissance England's most influential works were written in English; many of them were also written in Latin. However, most Renaissance Latin experts limit their studies to certain areas of these Latin works (poems and orations) while leaving other areas (theology, science, law, and medicine) to experts in those fields, who aren't trained to read complex Latin. Sadly, due to this, many of Renaissance England's most influential Latin works remain unexplored.
P2: Meanwhile, intellectual historians who do focus on things like history, cosmology, and theology rely too heavily on English texts. This leads them to underestimate how much English intellectuals were influenced by their Latin education and by the Latin works of European humanists. Indeed, such works had a significant impact on English writers.
P3: While it's understandable that both classicists and intellectual historians are limited in what they can look at, the fact is that we have a distorted picture of Renaissance England as a result.
I was so utterly thrown off by the answer saying its a general fact, since saw nothing in the stimulus that would indicate that it was. After reviewing, realize that ehhh still no support for it being general fact, but the rest of the content is still better than the other answers. The answer does outline a chain of ideas agricultural practices-erodes biodiversity-erode ability to produce food to support the idea that ability to produce food will change for the worse in the future.
Chose C initially but realize that it contrasted his position, but supported his prediction. Position is a stance in the argument, basically support for conclusion, while prediction is essentially conclusion. C supports his conclusion, but contrasts his position. So wrong emphasis in the answer.
A and E are just straight up wrong, since no phenomenon in need of explanation. B is wrong, since have no idea if Math's view is well known.
Assuming the LSAT writers were banking on automatic eliminations of C due to no initial evidence for the statement being a general fact. Worked pretty well, since I wrote off the answer immediately.
Really great summary. Thanks!
there are a couple of layers of difficulty to this questions. There is a conditional aspect to it that could explain why B is correct. The first setence is conditional (if sig. reduces pain → prepare to discuss). look at the main conclusion: doctors treating patients with chronic lower back pain should be prepared to discuss the merits of yoga". this mirrors the language in the first sentence. So, we now see that the necc. condtion happened. for this to be the conclusion, the sufficient condtion was triggered. This could've very well looked like the form of "yoga significantly reduces chronic lower back pain". But, notice how this is not in the answer choices! can't catch break. A layer of difficutly came from the 2nd sentence which said "both activities lead to equal reductions in chronic lower back pain". keep in mind this is merely a relative/comparative statement which says absolutely nothing about the ACTUAL reduction (just that one is not more or less than the other; they're equal). Ok, but is this reduction in pain minor? moderate? SIGNIFICANT? we need significant to activate the sufficient conditon, and if both yoga and strecthing are EQUAL in reduction, then STRETCHING significantly reduces chronic lower back pain. and that is answer choice B. hope this helps.
cya
):
Just to be devil's advocate, I sincerely would love to entertain the plausibility of "other" explanations. I mean obviously something melted the ice which allowed these fossils to end up in the sheaths.
Point is, these LSAT questions can be terrible and you really have to ignore outside biases.
I guess D is even worse than C.... Inserts a thought that doesn't impact the reasoning. At least in answer choice C you have the same main players that are present in the argument... D even if it happens that the corporation is vulnerable to breaching we do not know who did the act..answer choice D doesn't mention it, could be anyone...At this point I am lowering my standards to accept why D is the "right" answer in comparison to "C"
damn got this one right few months ago and now I messed up sigh
Lol I looked up the meaning of oxidation in blind review and pondered if that might be the distinction. Then decided, Nah the LSAT doesn't rely on outside info in RC. Turns out question #16 very much does. Ik the passage gives some clues to allow you to somewhat infer the definition, but they are literally at the end of the following paragraph which switches subjects to talk about steel, which you have to connect back to gold through positive light reflections to make that connection quickly.
What have I learned from reviewing this question? Idk, highlight important looking terms and guesstimate their definition.
/RELIED-METALS
/METALS-RELIED (GOLD can be relied upon, thus not in other category).
thought it was a principle question first time reading it and answering.
no offense but your explanation video for this question was more confusing than the actual question itself. please start explaining why the answer choices are correct or incorrect instead of saying "who cares"
Damn I got baited lol
That's not a reliable method and shows a lack of understanding
6/6 ayee whip nae nae
the essence of what answer choice C is saying that of the set of animals that were NOT hunted by the new people, MOST of them did not go extinct 2000 years after the migrations. This set was not driven to extinction via hunting and if they were able to survive the arrival of the new people withinthe 2000 years that went by, then it makes the whole microroganism hypothesis a lot weaker as it may point back to the small probabality of hunting contributing to the observed extinctions (implausible in the stimulus). It's not a slam dunk on the argument for sure but it does point the needle towards weakened.
i just felt that D was repeating what was already stated, im struggling to see how it justifies the argument
When an LSAT prompt says “find the flaw,” your job is to pinpoint how the reasoning misfires, not fix it. Often the author has taken for granted a key idea that links the premises to the conclusion; that hidden link is a necessary assumption the argument quietly relies on but never justifies. Don’t confuse this with a sufficient assumption, which would fully repair the argument if added.
On many flaw items, naming the NA exposes the gap. But not every flaw is assumption driven. Sometimes the issue is a classic pattern error i.e. causation from correlation, equivocation, part-to-whole leaps, biased samples, circular reasoning, or overlooking a viable alternative.
If the answers sound like “takes for granted” or “assumes,” think NA. If they read like “overlooks the possibility,” think ignored alternative and if they label a specific leap, name the fallacy.
Love the enthusiasm but how much whisky did you drink before you typed this?
ALso one thing that helps is that a wrong answer will have more faults to it. Besides the word delinate, my word that popped up is new. We have no textual support if this is new, just because nations began to change their efforts. Also the human inidcators, we are not sure if it is new. So a wrong answer sometimes will have more things wrong to it
Yeah this question needs to be a 5/5 difficulty. No idea how this is only a 4.
This question immediately made me think of every liberal and MSM outlet attacking Trump for his character and not his actual policies. "oRaNge mAn bAd"
Fire pits are stationary whereas lamps are not. Weak argument from you. To boot, fire pits aren't used for light so much, mainly for heat to keep warm.
Another thing to mention, fire pits are immobile whereas lamps are not. Fire pits are pre-dominantly used to stay warm whereas a lamp is used for illumination while being mobile. Choice D really just fucks up this whole question and conflates the logic.
And what if those that made the 7 types made 1000 each whereas the period that only made 4 types made 1100 each? You see how easily flawed your example is? And I was generous, I gave the type of 4, more numbers but it still doesn't aggregate to more than the aggregate of the 7 DESPITE there being more per type of the 4.
This question is total ass.
This has to go to be the dumbest fucking question I have ever read. How has this not been removed is beyond me. Look at the % for each AC. I have never seen it where it's almost even across the board. That should tell you something. SO many assumptions have to be made to answer this.
I worked with Hala Arnouk all summer after what felt like an impossibly arduous odyssey of self-studying, and I can confidently attest, and without so much as a breath of hesitation, that she made all the difference in my LSAT journey. From her customized study plans to our engaging tutoring sessions, Hala single-handedly shifted my attitude and approach toward this cursed test.
I went from scoring in the high 150s to the low 170s, and more importantly, I gained a level of confidence and clarity that I didn’t think was possible when I first started. Hala has that rare combination of deep LSAT-wizardry, epiphany-inducing explanations, and an unmatched infectious energy that made even the most soul-crushing questions make sense. She was patient when I wasn’t, encouraging when I needed it most, and also somehow managed to keep me focused all summer (a super rare feat). Every session felt tailored to my brain, and I always walked away with implementable strategies and slightly more conviction that I could tame the LSAT beast.
Can’t recommend 7Sage and their team enough. Thanks again to my LSAT goddess, Hala :)
If you missed this question then you're as cooked as a raisin.
No it's not outside knowledge because answer choice B literally says "thus keeping it's price up." If it had just said, "most people buy low quality tea," then yes, you would have made an assumption on the supply and demand relationship.
Good thing you went into law and not economics. Basic supply and demand 101 would tell you, you're completely wrong.
BRO WTF IS THIS SHIT?
on LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 17