Understand Every Answer!
LSAT Preptest 158 Explanations
Looking for a copy of LSAT preptest 158? See the list of LSAT preptests. <— LSAT preptest 158
Full explanations for every question from LSAT Preptest 158. 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 158 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
Passage 1, Deep Well Injections
Passage 2, The Trickster
Passage 3, Historical Approach to Plagiarism
- Passage Analysis
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
Passage 4, Criminal Sanctions Against Corporations
Section II Logical Reasoning
Section III Logical Reasoning
Section IV 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
Preptest 158 Data
Preptest 158 is a new format LSAT Preptest with no logic games section. Its sections come from Preptest 90 (Sections 1, 2 and 4) and Preptest 91 (Section 3). These preptests were administered in May 2020* originally. Section III 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.
*Note that these two tests were originally developed earlier than 2020, used as undisclosed LSAT administrations, and then re-used in 2020. So while PT 158 has a high number, the material is older than other recent preptests.
PDF Version
Get a pdf version of PT 158 explanations for the best formatting and offline use. Find pdfs of past test explanations as well.
Could you specifically go over LR section II problem #10? Thank you!
Hi! Here’s the explanation:
The historian is arguing that Swahili culture was influenced by the Oromo. His evidence is that they built tombs that were widespread among the Oromo but no other people that the Swahili civilization had contact with.
Immediately, we see an issue. What if the tombs were inherent to the Swahili people? Just because they’re not found in other civilizations they had contact with, doesn’t mean that they HAVE to be from the Oromo. What if the Swahili had them before the Oromo? So the answer will tell us something about how the historian is making a flawed conclusion that it must be from the Oromo without considering that the Swahili could have had it first.
It’s like saying John wears a certain type of sneakers. Ben has a lot of these types of sneakers, but no one else that John knows have any such sneakers. So Ben has influenced John’s style. But how do we know that? What if John discovered them on his own? What if John purchased them first?
In terms of the answers:
(A) is irrelevant. The use of the tombs isn’t in question here.
(B) There’s no information about what occurred first (that’s actually what we’re missing and would like to have), so this can’t be the flaw.
(C) This is saying the conclusion is too weak (i.e. “to some extent influenced” is too little, we should go further in how much influence the Oromo had). But that’s not the flaw here – we’re not taking issue with HOW much they historian is saying the Oromo influenced, but the fact that there’s not enough proof to even conclude any influence.
(D) This is tempting, but is already precluded based on what we know from the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that no other civilizations that the Swahili had contact with used such tombs. So, there can’t be a third civilization they got it from.
(E) is the correct answer. Since there’s no information about who built the tombs first, the argument is currently weak by concluding that the Oromo had to have influenced the Swahili. If the Swahili indeed had built the tombs first, then the argument falls apart. So it takes for granted this assumption.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Could you specifically go over LR section II problem #18? Thank you!
Hi, yes! The stimulus presents two statistics. In both cases, the improvement outcome was the same whether the patient saw a general practitioner or a specialist. The author uses this to draw the conclusion that it does not matter whether a patient sees a general practitioner or a specialist. According to the author, the chance of major improvement will be the same either way. So, the logic is: if success rates are the same on average, then the choice of provider doesn’t affect your chances.
Whenever someone concludes that two options are equally good, you should ask yourself what would need to be true for that to be a fair conclusion. In this case, it would have to be true that general practitioners and specialists are equally effective for all types of patients and injuries. That’s a pretty big assumption. Specialists often have more training in a narrower area, while general practitioners handle more general cases.
So the flaw is that even if success rates look the same on average, that doesn’t mean they are the same for every patient. If you had a complex spinal injury, you wouldn’t expect your chances of improvement to be the same at a GP as they would be at a specialist. So, the choice of provider DOES (or at least, can) matter.
This is exactly what E addresses. If general practitioners and specialists are better at different things, then the argument is wrong to claim that the choice between them doesn’t matter. In essence, the author is wrongly assuming that one-size-fits-all treatment outcomes mean that provider choice is irrelevant, when in reality, provider effectiveness might depend on the kind of injury involved.
Hope that helps! If there’s a specific answer choice you were curious about, let me know and I’m happy to explain.
Any word on when section 2 explanations will be published? Thank you
May be a few months, our current focus is on finishing explanations for a couple of tests that have none at present. But if there’s a specific question you’d like explained please feel free to ask here.
Could you please provide an answer key for section 2?
If you’re wanting to simply see the correct answers, you are able to do so on LawHub where LSAC provides official PrepTests. I assume, however, that you’re asking for explanations for Section 2. Graeme has not gotten to this section yet, but I’ve added your request to the explanation queue, and we’ll keep you updated when they’re ready! Unfortunately, we can’t provide a timeline for when this will be.
Will there be explanations added for Section II 2?
Yes, Graeme is working on writing explanations to cover all sections in the new PTs! They will be uploaded as soon as they’re completed.
Was there ever a guide made to cover section II? Thank you!
Graeme is working on completing the missing explanations. They will be uploaded once they’re completed!