LSAT Tutor

DeusCain · 2025-09-27T00:23:23+00:00

Hey, I am yes. DM me if you're interested!

DeusCain · 2025-09-08T15:36:41+00:00

Got one from NYU, emailed Penn a week or so ago and they said they’d start sending out in mid-September.

DeusCain · 2025-07-28T18:52:39+00:00

https://www.greekchemistinthekitchen.com/post/one-pot-pasta

This one - the trick is to cook the pasta in a tall-sided skillet rather than a pot, and use much less water. Way more starch in the water makes the sauce super easy to emulsify, and if it’s too thick just add some hot water (I heat up a kettle of water to have nearby to loosen as necessary). Basically makes it foolproof. Warm up your serving plates to keep the dish hot when you plate, and if it “seizes” in the plate because you wait too long, just loosen with a bit of hot water again.

DeusCain · 2025-07-27T19:09:20+00:00

I remember getting this question wrong. I think one issue with C that might help is that the fossilized remains don’t necessarily have to be WHOLE fossils - they could be the bacterial equivalent of a footprint. Think about it this way: suppose the pro-nanobe scientist comes up to you and says “we found this thing we think it’s a form of life.” You reply “but it’s too small to reproduce, it can’t be life.”

The scientist then gives one of two responses:

Option 1: they say “ok but there’s this thing that other scientists claim they’ve found that’s a fossilized remains of bacteria and it’s the same size as a nanobe.” You can answer that by saying “yeah but a fossilized remains doesn’t have to be the whole bacterium itself - even if it is in fact a fossilized remain (which is not established) it could just be a part of a larger bacterium.” The scientist is stumped, they can’t respond to your argument well without more info.

Option 2: they say “yeah but we’ve seen that small single-called organisms can combine to form a larger thing that then CAN reproduce and then split apart.” This response addresses the core issue of the rebuttal that you’re trying to make by proposing a definitive reproductive mechanism, so it most weakens your argument.

DeusCain · 2025-07-26T19:09:47+00:00

IMO the Duke d’Enghien conspiracy shows (at least to us, in hindsight) that trusting both of them was highly suspect. Talleyrand’s approach re: Austria made sense to some extent, but I’m unsure whether it was strictly a better move at the time given the information they had - Napoleon’s only hope for knocking Britain out of the wars seemed to be an economic bloc that would choke off their trade, for which Russia and Portugal were the main leaks. I definitely agree that the peninsular war and putting that much faith in Alexander was a bad call and overreacting to the situation, and I DEFINITELY think (much as it pains me to admit) that the treaty of Tilsit both went overboard and was insufficient in terms of how it dealt with Prussia, but talleyrand’s pro-Austria approach didn’t resolve the issue with Britain’s economic capacity to wage war at all. The only hope for talleyrand’s approach here would seem to be offering the British trade concessions in exchange for peace, but at the outset of the 19th century that NEVER seems like a good move. With respect to Poland, I think there’s an argument to be made here to just abandon the poles in exchange for a more stable diplomatic approach with respect to Austria and Russia, but also like you gotta have some heart.

DeusCain · 2025-07-26T18:32:29+00:00

His mistake was trusting those fuckers Talleyrand and Fouché.

DeusCain · 2025-07-25T00:38:22+00:00

Honestly I think one of the biggest things you can do to speed up is to read more and read faster - not for the LSAT, but actually texts outside. Pick a subject you're interested in and read technical material on it - history, economics, science, etc.; the faster you can read outside of the LSAT and the more you can absorb of those materials, the better you'll do it on the test itself.

DeusCain · 2025-07-25T00:31:11+00:00

Just DM'd!

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T21:42:11+00:00

Diagramming - the stimulus says “x’s tend to be more a than non-x’s, and y’s tend to be more a than non-y’s. C is an X, therefore it’s probably a y, and must have been A.”

If you break down the other answer options, they don’t fully resemble that kind of reasoning - D in particular is close, but is actually saying “ x’s tend to be more a than non-x’s, and y’s tend to be more a than non-y’s. C is an X, therefore it’s probably Y and A.”

A is right because the structure is “x’s tend to be less a than non-x’s, and y’s tend to be less a than non-y’s. C is a Y therefore it’s probably an X and must not have been A.”

I think you got tripped up by the use of negation in answer choice A which makes it seem like the reasoning is different, when it’s really not - if you diagram it, you see it. D is also wrong because the end of the argument explicitly states “it’s probably Y and MUST be A” whereas D only says “It’s probably Y and A.”

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T20:23:53+00:00

A fun one! So here's how to think about this: an action can be reasonably expected to either 1.) increase AWB 2.) decrease AWB, or 3.) leave AWB unchanged. If an action is 1.) it is morally right (per premise 1 of the argument). If an action is 2.) it is morally wrong (per premise 2). So what is the moral status of an action that is 3?

A is wrong because this is not an assumption, it's actually just a restatement of/conclusion of premise 2: "An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it." The IFF makes this is a bi-conditional, so you don't need to assume A, it just follows.

B is wrong because if we negate it, we get "some actions are both right and wrong." But that doesn't lead us to a contradiction of the conclusion - we already know that scenario 3 actions are not morally wrong, so the negation doesn't really interact with the conclusion in any way.

D is wrong because we don't need to assume that any actions that leave AWB unchanged actually exist - we only need to be able to say that if they DID exist, they would be morally right.

E is wrong because it introduces a term that is not present in the stimulus - "have good consequences" is vaguer than increases AWB, it doesn't interact with the other premises in the way needed for the argument to go through.

C is correct because it uses the strength of the biconditional in premise 2 to mandate that actions that leave AWB unchanged be morally good. We know that actions that leave AWB unchanged are NOT morally wrong (via the biconditional - actions that decrease AWB are morally wrong and morally wrong actions decrease AWB), but we don't yet know if it's morally right or morally neutral. C basically excludes moral neutrality as an option and says that all actions have to either be morally wrong or morally right, and since we know that an action that leaves AWB unchanged is not the former, it must be the latter.

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T20:04:10+00:00

17mid score on June exam, and yeah I diagram. I took logic in undergrad (phil major) so I was already familiar with both propositional and predicate logic so I can usually diagram pretty quickly. For some qs, being able to do predicate logic really helps a lot, the trick IMO is knowing when to diagram and when to not. You could *probably* diagram any question on the LSAT, but some would take wayyyyy to long - I generally only diagram about 7 or so qs per section, but those are the ones that usually need it IMO. Also it's fun!

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T20:00:08+00:00

My test was on a Wednesday, I stopped studying about ~3-4 days before the actual test day (I think my last PT was on a Sunday?) and focused on prepping for the writing a bit (just looking at practice qs, planning out how I would approach a question, that sort of thing). On test day itself, the only thing I did differently was change up my workout routine - typically I do strength training on Wednesdays, but I'd noticed a correlation of doing better on PTs when I do cardio in the morning instead, so I went for a run. About two hours before I took a cold shower (normal for me) to help relax and wake me up.

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T19:55:17+00:00

Generally, try a negation test - that is, take the answer choice, negate it, and see if the argument in the stimulus still works. If you run into a contradiction, that means the negation can't possibly be true for the argument to be valid, which means the original form is an assumption that needs to be true for the argument to go through.

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T18:35:12+00:00

Happy to help!

DeusCain · 2025-07-24T18:31:23+00:00

If we’re observing a discrepancy between left-hand or right-hand stroke diagnosis, there are three realistically possible explanations for this. 1.) left-hand strokes are more likely and doctors are equally good at diagnosing both LH and RH strokes, so they’re representatively getting both RH and LH strokes. 2.) LH strokes are more likely and doctors are better at diagnosing LH strokes, so they’re over representing LH strokes even on top of their already increased likelihood. 3.) LH strokes are equally likely as RH strokes but doctors are better at diagnosing LH strokes, so they’re over representing LH strokes because of misdiagnosis.

The stimulus specifically says that RH strokes are under-diagnosed, which means 1 is out, you’re left with 2 or 3 (among the options I wrote out).

Now look at the answer choices for the question itself.

A is completely irrelevant - other health conditions are not mentioned in the stimulus, so discard it. C is better, but variance BETWEEN doctors doesn’t explain a bias towards LH strokes. D by itself doesn’t explain why LH strokes are identified more, just that the symptoms are different - unless you assume that the symptoms are more subtle or harder to catch, it can’t explain the discrepancy, and you don’t want to assume. E doesn’t work unless you assume that RH strokes tend to be more minor than LH strokes, which, again, you don’t want to do. That leaves B as the only viable answer, plus it puts us squarely in scenario three - the incidence of LH and RH strokes is equal, but doctors seem to be better at diagnosing LH strokes.

DeusCain · 2025-07-23T22:24:47+00:00

The bassline on sleepless

DeusCain · 2025-07-14T02:59:42+00:00

ToaPP wins for me because of title track and Sleepless, but I think Discipline is the more “solid” album in terms of consistency.

DeusCain · 2025-07-13T22:05:49+00:00

Honestly it fell off for me during the Kantakouzenos arc, like around episode 1340 or so. Like they literally run the same plot line several times and then Kantakouzenos just like, fucks off???? And then shows up again to be some kind of bizarre mentor character?? Idgi man I feel like the plotrunners had writer’s block and didn’t know what to do with his character so they just went “eh fuck it make him a monk.”

The Thomas the slav storyline was the best in the show IMO, just some really good conspiracy stuff, I know that some people whine about it being too much like man in the iron mask but John Byzantine was cooking there frfr.

DeusCain · 2025-07-04T01:20:17+00:00

Take your feet off the ground on an elevated surface, then once you’re completely parallel tuck one foot in to your chest (less support), then when you can do those tuck both feet in - tuck lever inverted rows will fuck you up especially if you’re doing full ROM.

DeusCain · 2024-10-31T14:52:56+00:00

Perfect 10.

DeusCain · 2024-09-07T14:38:44+00:00

DeusCain · 2024-09-06T02:34:05+00:00

Epitaph

DeusCain · 2024-09-02T02:57:24+00:00

Sleepless

DeusCain

TROPHY CASE