Understand Every Answer!
LSAT Preptest 152 Explanations
Looking for a copy of LSAT preptest 152? See the list of LSAT preptests. <— LSAT preptest 152
Full explanations for every question from LSAT Preptest 152. For free. What are you waiting for?
- Review on your own first.
- Have the question on hand.
- If a question gave you great difficulty, flag it to redo later. This will help you master the concepts in it.
Enjoy the PT 152 explanations! And let me know what you think in the comments.
Note: Phones may not display this page well. I recommend a computer or tablet.
Section I Logical Reasoning
Section not written.
Let us know which questions you’d like explained in the comments!
Section II (Exp) Logical Reasoning
Section IIIReading Comprehension
Section not written. Let us know which questions you’d like explained in the comments.
Section IVLogical Reasoning
Section not written. Let us know which questions you’d like explained in the comments.
Preptest 152 Data
Preptest 152 is a new format LSAT Preptest with no logic games section. Its sections come from Preptest 86 (Sections 1, 3 and 4) and Preptest 82 (Section 2). These preptests were administered in November 2018 and September 2017 originally. Section II is the experimental section, which does not count towards your score. It is included in order to let you simulate a four question practice test – the questions themselves are no different in style than the scored sections.
PDF Version
Get a pdf version of PT 152 explanations for the best formatting and offline use. Find pdfs of past test explanations as well.
Can you please provide a thorough explanation for PT 152, Section 3, Question 16? Is D the answer because rehabilitation refers to future positive change, in the same way that “forward looking” refers to the future?
Yep, you’ve got the main idea. In Passage A, “forward looking” means shifting the legal system away from backward-looking blame and toward managing/predicting future behavior (e.g. risk/treatment/prevention).
In Passage B, rehabilitation is the concept that represents that same stance: reform the offender to improve future outcomes, rather than punish for past blameworthiness.
Here are why the other answers are wrong:
A: entrenched described how deep-seated blame is, not a future focus
B: rational refers to argument style, not aims or future focus
C: conditioned is about how people form judgments, again not a future focus
E: backlash is a reaction against rehabilitation, not a future-oriented policy
So D is correct because both forward looking and rehabilitation point to prospective change, reducing future offending, rather than assigning post-oriented blame.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have more questions.
For PT152.S1.Q15
Could you provide examples of answer choices A and B?
I did choose A, but I wanted to know how I can get better at recognizing each of these faster.
A says treats the failure to satisfy a condition that brings about a particular outcome as if satisfying that condition is the only way to realize the outcome
B says that confuses something that is necessary for an action to occur with something that necessarily results from that action
Or if there are more ways to state NA/SA confusion
Sure! Let’s break down the argument.
The author says: If understanding -> forgiveness.
Then concludes: Complete understanding is impossible -> thus, complete forgiveness is impossible.
That’s like saying If not understanding -> not forgiveness. But that’s not the correct contrapositive. The correct contrapositive would be: If not forgiveness -> not understanding (because you have to both negate and flip the conditional).
So the flaw is that the argument negates the sufficient condition and assumes that makes the necessary condition impossible. In other words, it treats a sufficient condition (understanding) as if it were necessary. That’s what answer A describes.
Another way to describe A is that the argument thinks one thing is the only way something can happen. Here’s an example:
If it rains, the streets will get wet. It didn’t rain, so the streets won’t get wet.
That’s wrong, because there could be other ways for the street to get wet. There could be sprinklers, someone could be washing their car, etc. The correct contrapositive from If rain -> wet, would be If not wet -> not rain. That makes a lot more sense. If the street isn’t wet, you typically can assume it’s not raining.
Answer B says the opposite thing. It’s saying that the argument assumes a necessary condition is sufficient. As an example:
You need oxygen to have fire (if fire -> oxygen). So since there’s oxygen, there must be fire (if oxygen -> fire). That’s wrong because oxygen is necessary for fire, but not sufficient (you also need fuel and heat). That conclusion is saying wherever we have oxygen there will always be fire. Which doesn’t make sense – the whole world would be burning 24/7.
In cases where you have two answers that talk about confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, it’ll be important to identify which is the necessary and which is the sufficient condition in the stimulus (to see which one they’ve incorrectly flipped). The easiest way to do so is to draw the arrow, and remember that the necessary condition is always on the right side and the sufficient is always on the left.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Thank you so much! Could you also give an example of “takes for granted that something that has merely been said to be true is, in fact, true”
This isn’t circular reasoning, right?
You’re right that that statement is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the conclusion just restates the premise (e.g. The law is fair because it’s just).
What this statement means, to take for granted that something merely said to be true is actually true, is that you’re assuming that a claim is fact without providing support.
For example, imagine I said: “This study’s conclusion is reliable because the author states that their methods were rigorous.” That’s a bad argument. I’m assuming the author’s claim is true, when in fact, it is indeed just a claim. A much better argument would actually examine the author’s methods to see if they’re rigorous. Hope that helps :)
can you give the explanation of Q12 in secton 4?
The scientists in the stimulus propose that the Amazon River used to flow into the Pacific Ocean. Today, this isn’t possible because the Andes Mountains block the way. However, the presence of freshwater fish in the Amazon that are descended from extinct Pacific saltwater species lead scientists to believe that they used to be connected.
We’re looking for an answer that strengthens this hypothesis. That means we want something that makes it MORE likely that the Amazon once flowed into the Pacific, allowing those saltwater fish to enter the Amazon and eventually become/descend into the freshwater fish we see today. Wrong answers will either have no impact or weaken this idea.
A) could weaken the argument. If species that share characteristics often don’t share a common ancestor, then we have less reason to believe the Amazon fish descended from the Pacific fish. It definitely doesn’t strengthen it.
B) is correct. It says the extinct Pacific fish lived before the Andes formed. That supports the hypothesis by showing the fish could have entered the Amazon system before the Andes blocked the flow. Note that it doesn’t make the hypothesis foolproof, but our job is not to PROVE it correct, only to strengthen it.
C) is irrelevant. It talks about Atlantic and Pacific fish being related, but the argument is about how Pacific saltwater fish ended up in the Amazon, not about inter-ocean fish relationships.
D) is also irrelevant. It describes how far the Andes stretch, but the size of the mountain range isn’t the most telling feature (i.e. we’re more concerned with when it formed, as shown by B).
E) could also weaken the argument. It implies that few fish can survive both saltwater and freshwater conditions, suggesting that maybe the Pacific fish couldn’t have survived to adapt and descend into the Amazon fish. But it also says “very few”, not none, so it doesn’t rule out the possibility entirely. So, at worst, it weakens, and at best it doesn’t impact the argument. Definitely doesn’t strengthen it.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Could I please receive an explanation for questions 16 and 19 in Section 1 of LSAT 152? I am especially confused with question 19 as B seemed like a great choice.
Hello! Could you upload an explanation for PT 152 Section 4 Question 23. I believe this is PT 86 as well. Thank you so much and btw your explanations are extremely helpful.
-Kristy
Can you explain the answer for question 13 section 4?
Hey quick question, but where are the practice explanations for Sections 1, 3, and 4? I tried looking for Practice Test 86 as well (the test those sections are derived from) but couldn’t find those either. Let me know if this is just an error on my end or something
We didn’t write 86 yet unfortunately, hope to have it up within a few months. Will send an email when they’re out. If there’s a specific question you’d like explained please feel free to ask here.