Understand Every Answer!
LSAT Preptest 153 Explanations
Looking for a copy of LSAT preptest 153? See the list of LSAT preptests. <— LSAT preptest 153
Full explanations for every question from LSAT Preptest 153. 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 153 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 Reading Comprehension
Section II Logical Reasoning
- Question 1
- Question 2
- Question 3
- Question 4
- Question 5
- Question 6
- Question 7
- Question 8
- Question 9
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section III Logical Reasoning
- Question 1
- Question 2
- Question 3
- Question 4
- Question 5
- Question 6
- Question 7
- Question 8
- Question 9
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Section IV (Exp)Reading Comprehension
Passage 1, Forests
Passage 2, Indigenous Languages
Passage 3, Judicial Candor (comparative)
- Passage Analysis
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
Passage 4, Grand Theories
Preptest 153 Data
Preptest 153 is a new format LSAT Preptest with no logic games section. Its sections come from Preptest 87 (Sections 1, 2 and 3) and Preptest 82 (Section 4). These preptests were administered in June 2019 and September 2017 originally. Section IV 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 153 explanations for the best formatting and offline use. Find pdfs of past test explanations as well.
Hello, I need some help with section 1, question 11. A large portion of the passage was about the ecological effects of fish farming. Because of this, I found answer choice E to be quite compelling. The correct answer was C. I get why it is correct. In paragraphs 2 and 3, the input-to-output ratio of different fish were compared. My question is, what made C the better choice? That is kind of lost upon me, as I found both answers to be good and likely narrowed it down to those two while taking this practice test.
You’re definitely not alone in this as E is one of the trap answers. E sounds tempting because the passage focuses heavily on the environmental downsides of fish farming. The key, though, is that the author’s concern isn’t just which method has worse ecological effects, but whether fish farming actually solves the food shortage problem it was meant to address. The passage ends up emphasizing that fish farming can decrease overall food availability because it consumes more wild fish than it produces (paragraph 3).
So while E talks about replacing bad methods with better ones, the author never actually says fish farming should only be used if it replaces existing methods. They’re evaluating it based on its net impact on total food supply, which is exactly what C says: fish farming shouldn’t be used if it leads to a net decrease in fish available for consumption.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Hello! Would it be possible to explain Section 1, Question 15? I’m finding it hard to distinguish between answer B and D. To me, it seems that the only real difference comes from the fact that B is more specific in citing “convictions based on false testimony” while D is the more general answer that can encompass those convictions as well as the psychological evidence cited in the last paragraph. That’s if I really look, too, because the two answer choices are very similar to me. Thank you!
You’re right that the two answers sound similar, but D is ultimately inaccurate/actually too narrow.
B correctly identifies the main conclusion the author is arguing toward: courts’ reliance on accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants may lead to false convictions.
Every paragraph directly builds that case – first about how incentives create strong motives to lie, then how supposed safeguards don’t always protect defendants, and finally that psychological research shows jurors tend to overvalue confession-like testimony.
So the passage’s central concern is the danger of false convictions arising from reliance on incentivized testimony.
D, on the other hand, shifts the focus. It claims the author’s main point is that traditional legal arguments for allowing such testimony rest on questionable assumptions. But the passage never actually outlines or critiques any “traditional legal argument”. It only mentions courts’ position briefly (beginning of para 3), but that’s only used to further the point that the safeguards don’t always offer protection. So the author’s main goal isn’t to deconstruct the courts’ reasoning (if that’s what we’re considering the “traditional legal argument” D refers to), but to show that their confidence in those safeguards is misplaced and dangerous.
A structure that would make more sense for D is if the passage was set up to say “These are the arguments courts use in support for bartered testimony. The reasoning in these arguments is misguided because X, Y and Z studies show that …”. But that’s not how the passage is structured. The safeguards paragraph is just one reason of several that the author builds on to further the point that there’s a danger of false convictions.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Hello! I’m wondering if you can explain Section 1 Question 17. I was stuck between (B) and (E). I understand that (E) is right because testimony of cooperating witnesses can have evidence fabrication, which could lead to unwarranted sentence reductions. But I don’t fully understand why (B) is WRONG. I think I implied the external factors talked about in the end of paragraph 5 could be fear of retaliation (what answer E says). And since the answer is so weak it could technically happen. If you can elaborate why I should have strayed away from this answer that would be great!
Thanks
Hi!
The problem with B is that the author never suggests fear of retaliation is something courts overlook or that it’s relevant to the reliability of cooperating witness testimony. The entire critique is about how incentives offered by prosecutors (like reduced sentences) create opportunities and motivations for fabrication, and how jurors fail to account for that due to psychological biases. Paragraph 5 and the psychological research focus on how jurors misinterpret incentivized behavior – they assume testimony or confessions are sincere rather than strategic.
In contrast, E directly connects to the author’s main point: incentives can lead to false testimony, and courts allow this to influence sentencing outcomes. That’s why E is correct and B is unsupported by the passage.
Note: If you were thinking of the phrase in the last paragraph about external factors making it “expedient to give testimony”, that refers to incentives like leniency and reductions, not retaliation. Expedient means convenient or advantageous, which fits with the idea of witnesses testifying to gain something, not out of concern for retaliation (especially when you consider the whole context of the passage).
Just some observation and advice: where you may be going off-track here is by inferring based on any external concerns that might make sense in the real world, like retaliation. But if you strictly stick to what the passage presents, it doesn’t fit into the author’s argument.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Hello,
Is the section 1 reading comprehension available elsewhere? Thank you for your time.
Unfortunately we haven’t written those yet. We’ll send an email when they’re ready, but it will likely be a few months. We have about 75% coverage but some tests are missing. But if there’s a specific question you’d like explained please feel free to ask here.
Hi, could you please explain question 6 of section 1? I’m trying to figure out how C is better than A. The author seems to not mind translations, and the author never states that movies SHOULD be subtitled, or that the subtitles have to be extremely strict. I can slightly understand why C may be correct but I’m still not 100% on it.
Hi! The author criticizes how subtitling can be “incompetent, full of mistakes …”, which implies that translations should avoid such mistakes and reflect the original to maintain the film’s integrity. While this doesn’t impose a specific measure of strictness like you said, the author does argue that they should align closely with the original intent (and that this frequently doesn’t happen). This suggests that the author is endorsing a stricter standard for subtitling than is currently the case.
A suggests translating the title and adding explanatory material. While you’re right that translated subtitling isn’t stated as mandatory, imagine watching a movie in a language you don’t understand without any subtitles. How authentic would the experience be? Explanatory materials wouldn’t necessarily help convey the filmmaker’s intent when the audience has no clue what’s actually being said in the movie. Considering the author is concerned with both the filmmaker’s intent and the audience’s experience of this intent, it’s reasonable to conclude that the film should be subtitled in Russian, but only in a way that is faithful to the original Italian spoken words. TLDR: the author is concerned with the relationship between the filmmaker’s intent and the viewer’s perception, but how does the audience even develop a good perception of the intent without understanding the movie? So C is the best way to go about this, while A doesn’t seem to provide enough material for a Russian audience to understand an Italian movie. Hope that helps!
Hi! I have a question about Q12 in Section 1. I’m trying to understand how market forces can discourage overfishing of ocean fisheries. I see an example of market forces **encouraging** overfishing because of the emergence of niche markets of several species of wild-caught fish. Is the strongest implication for “discouraging overfishing” that people can show more interest in farmed species like tilapia and channel catfish? Because the passage only mentions that those fish farms exist. Thank you!
Hi Justine! The passage provides examples of discouraging overfishing in two key ways:
1. Price reduction from increased farm production: It states that expanding farm production of fish like salmon (last paragraph) can lower prices, which ultimately reduces fishing efforts. This is a direct example of how market forces discourage overfishing.
2. Substitution effect (like you mentioned): Farmed fish like tilapia and channel catfish are described as viable alternatives to ocean fish like cod and haddock.
The overall implication from these examples is that when farmed fish reduce prices and provide alternatives for consumers (which are examples of market forces), they can alleviate pressure on wild fisheries.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.