Discussion
Resources
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
41
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Really don't understand« on: September 01, 2009, 10:31:49 PM »
i started my "boot camp"
been taking PTs everyday except this past sunday. I'm taking a break tomorrow. and plan on reviewing LR questions. 42
Studying for the LSAT / Really don't understand« on: September 01, 2009, 07:49:42 PM »
Really don't understand the sudden drop in scores. It's almost ridiculous. raw scores went from 90s to 86 87s.
44
Studying for the LSAT / Re: how to eliminate....« on: August 30, 2009, 07:37:46 PM »
practice? I don't know ive been practicing for a while now....
45
Studying for the LSAT / PT 34 Section 2 #10« on: August 30, 2009, 07:36:44 PM »
I am not quite sure what the difference between A and D is. why is D the answer and not A?
46
Studying for the LSAT / how to eliminate....« on: August 29, 2009, 04:50:07 PM »
stupid mistakes?! those are KILLING me.
47
Studying for the LSAT / PT 34 : section 3: #25« on: August 29, 2009, 01:21:51 PM »
What exactly is the logical relationship between Jordan and Terry. I don't see a connection really..
Why is (A) the answer? 49
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 37 Sec.2(LR) Q.26« on: August 27, 2009, 08:20:17 AM »
You forgot the "all known deposits".
when i approach parallel questions i try to look at the stimulus as a "whole". I try to match the (1) logic, (2) structure, (3) flaw if necessary. All known deposits are in tanzania. so ashley collects only tanzanite stones, and unlikely will collect stones not from tanzania. (D) the only frogs yet discovered are in the lagoon. since owls only eat frogs from the lagoon, they will never eat an animal outside of the lagoon. if you look at the choice, all structural aspect matches. (E) is wrong because of structural reasons. 50
Studying for the LSAT / Re: PT 14 Question« on: August 27, 2009, 08:14:50 AM »
Main claim of the stimulus is that the definition of addiction - dependence on and abuse - is incorrect. to support this, the stimulus says cancer patients can become dependent on morphine but is not abusing it. Also, a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it. the premise basically infers that the two - dependence and abuse - do not go together; thus the definition being incorrect for saying they do. so the author thinks the definition of addiction should be something like "either one is dependent or abusive of substance".
choice (C) makes this possible by saying patients being dependent on morphine are addicted to it (satisfying the "or"). choice (A) is wrong because if you were to negate it, it would be something like "patients sometimes abuse morphine" and it would have no affect on the conclusion. Plus, this is a supporter assumption question according to the LRB, so you need to "bridge" the existing gap. and (A) just doesn't have any relation to the conclusion. hope this helps. |
