@anulirz It depends on the question. In Must Be True questions, we cannot bring in information outside the given facts. But in questions like Strengthen or Weaken, we should use common sense reasonable interpretations to understand the impact of different answers.
I don't like this misleading claim in the 5th paragraph which says that if we had AN athlete(one) train in low oxygen then her results would prove something, as can clearly be seen in LSAT questions statistical fallacies such as improper sample size is tested and important on the LSAT. One athlete is not a proper sample size to test this hypothesis.
I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
I think instead of the jokes here and there, you guys can throw in an example from the actual test. This would be far more beneficial to everyone spending time trying to understand the material without any sort of real hands-on application.
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
That's true! But we are just strengthening our hypothesis by these methods. Nothing can prove a hypothesis unless it is provided and declared as truth and fact. In other words no amount of correlation can ever prove a causation , it can only support it and make it stronger!
You are right, and I believe a future lesson touches on this. However, this lesson is about evaluating the truth of a hypothesis' predictions, not proving the hypothesis true. If a hypothesis' predictions are observed to be true, that supports the hypothesis, increasing the likelihood that it is true.
#feedback I feel like it is unappealing to put curse words in a huge study platform and assume that most people will find it lighthearted and almost brighten up their studies, because for me it has the exact opposite effect and I just cringe at it as I find cursing so distasteful. I get the approach, it just feels inconsiderate and unprofessional to me as many opt out of using bad language morally or otherwise.
People think it is immoral to curse? Really? The LSAT is likely the most test we will ever take. Doing well will possibly land us admission to elite schools and at the very least, every point is worth thousands of dollars in scholarship money that will not have to go into debt over. This is a hard test. Prepping is extremely stressful. So if 7Sages wants to throw in a little levity with the occasional curse word, it is welcome.
I got a little bored with the reading and something told me to read the feedback and I am not disappointed LOL, I am too old to LOL but this deserve it. I personally do not use this kind of language but I do not care for those who use it. The LSAT is not a joke and focusing on their use of words is the least of my worries. I would say waste of space because they will probably read it and skip it. If it was a real problem, they would probably address your problem.
With that said, we need something else with all the reading. If we are not doing videos, add something else.
Well when you're an LSAT master, you can create your own program and curriculum without curse words. In the meantime, these people are the masters and they can do what they want. They've earned it.
Agree. The foul language is immature and unprofessional, impugning the credibility of the material for LSAT preparation. I'm reconsidering whether to continue paying for this program, let alone recommending it to others (and there are already some reasons against that).
Anyone who says it's "unprofessional" and "immature" to be swearing in this course, I know every single one of you panic in the real world over very mundane, non-catastrophic things. But you're doing great with your implementation of quantifiers. You are definitely correct that most people will find it light hearted and brighten up their studies, meaning at least 51% of people of course. While I do find it as your own prerogative, though unfortunate, that you find the use of harmless language morally unjust and avoid using it yourself, if at least 51% of people on this course would say otherwise and believe that it actually helps to improve their learning, then I would say (if we're on the basis of morality) that holy shit that's just fucking fine because it's for the greater good. A curse word every now and again is not going to hurt you, I promise. Wait till you hear about crimes and legal issues, my dear Melissa.
Bruh, you guys should be more concerned over the lack of videos in some of these lessons. Cuss words are the least of my worries -- and they should be for you too.
"Bruh..." (rhymes with Duh...) I couldn't care less about the videos; not my learning style. Perhaps you should do something constructive, like submit a complaint to JY and 7Sage about the vids, instead of presuming to tell other people what you believe they should think is important.
These people ask for feedback on the curriculum as a whole, language is part of it, that’s my honest feedback because it bothers ME. Yes, they can do whatever they want. In the same way, I can freely express what I believe, even more so when feedback is requested, whether or not you agree with it.
They're kind of like orcas in the sense that they know they are smarter than the other animals around them but they lack the moral compass to not slap stingrays in the air or kill sharks for fun.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
51 comments
aren't we not allowed to use outside information.... I am so confused
@anulirz It depends on the question. In Must Be True questions, we cannot bring in information outside the given facts. But in questions like Strengthen or Weaken, we should use common sense reasonable interpretations to understand the impact of different answers.
@Kevin_Lin makes sense
I don't like this misleading claim in the 5th paragraph which says that if we had AN athlete(one) train in low oxygen then her results would prove something, as can clearly be seen in LSAT questions statistical fallacies such as improper sample size is tested and important on the LSAT. One athlete is not a proper sample size to test this hypothesis.
I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
@dh2303 I agree, I'm also having difficulty taking notes for this part of the curriculum.
I find the handwritten notes very hard to follow.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
It is shocking to read comments referencing what these videos used to say. Thank you for removing the "colorful language."
I think instead of the jokes here and there, you guys can throw in an example from the actual test. This would be far more beneficial to everyone spending time trying to understand the material without any sort of real hands-on application.
I wish some of these video lessons would apply the information to LSAT questions. These are still very good lessons!!
good stuff
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
Peak.
@mattcriner25959
I am HERE for the COLORFUL language in the text!!!! Thank you!!!
These jokes keep me going. Thank you for the lols
Im liking the Dr Claw reference
Guess I am an evil motherfucker then lmao caught me so off guard
Did a dolphin hurt you?
This guy gets it
I busted out laughing and it made me more engaged
#feedback- Add more "cuss words". If more cuss words are added, then I will absorb material better.
For those of you getting tripped on the word, who the fuck cares? Build a bridge, get over it.
I agree. more cuss words is sufficient to absorbing material better #feedback
honestly feels like i'm learning these concepts from friends when y'all say things like "you're an evil motherfucker" LOL love it
In the scientific world, a hypothesis cannot be proven true but either supported or not supported by the evidence.
good point! They should fix this #feedback
That's true! But we are just strengthening our hypothesis by these methods. Nothing can prove a hypothesis unless it is provided and declared as truth and fact. In other words no amount of correlation can ever prove a causation , it can only support it and make it stronger!
You are right, and I believe a future lesson touches on this. However, this lesson is about evaluating the truth of a hypothesis' predictions, not proving the hypothesis true. If a hypothesis' predictions are observed to be true, that supports the hypothesis, increasing the likelihood that it is true.
#feedback I feel like it is unappealing to put curse words in a huge study platform and assume that most people will find it lighthearted and almost brighten up their studies, because for me it has the exact opposite effect and I just cringe at it as I find cursing so distasteful. I get the approach, it just feels inconsiderate and unprofessional to me as many opt out of using bad language morally or otherwise.
People think it is immoral to curse? Really? The LSAT is likely the most test we will ever take. Doing well will possibly land us admission to elite schools and at the very least, every point is worth thousands of dollars in scholarship money that will not have to go into debt over. This is a hard test. Prepping is extremely stressful. So if 7Sages wants to throw in a little levity with the occasional curse word, it is welcome.
I got a little bored with the reading and something told me to read the feedback and I am not disappointed LOL, I am too old to LOL but this deserve it. I personally do not use this kind of language but I do not care for those who use it. The LSAT is not a joke and focusing on their use of words is the least of my worries. I would say waste of space because they will probably read it and skip it. If it was a real problem, they would probably address your problem.
With that said, we need something else with all the reading. If we are not doing videos, add something else.
Well when you're an LSAT master, you can create your own program and curriculum without curse words. In the meantime, these people are the masters and they can do what they want. They've earned it.
Completely disagree. Not everything has to be so serious, it's what makes the content more consumable.
I hope I never have to work with you
Agree. The foul language is immature and unprofessional, impugning the credibility of the material for LSAT preparation. I'm reconsidering whether to continue paying for this program, let alone recommending it to others (and there are already some reasons against that).
Anyone who says it's "unprofessional" and "immature" to be swearing in this course, I know every single one of you panic in the real world over very mundane, non-catastrophic things. But you're doing great with your implementation of quantifiers. You are definitely correct that most people will find it light hearted and brighten up their studies, meaning at least 51% of people of course. While I do find it as your own prerogative, though unfortunate, that you find the use of harmless language morally unjust and avoid using it yourself, if at least 51% of people on this course would say otherwise and believe that it actually helps to improve their learning, then I would say (if we're on the basis of morality) that holy shit that's just fucking fine because it's for the greater good. A curse word every now and again is not going to hurt you, I promise. Wait till you hear about crimes and legal issues, my dear Melissa.
Bruh, you guys should be more concerned over the lack of videos in some of these lessons. Cuss words are the least of my worries -- and they should be for you too.
Perhaps you should do something constructive, like submit a complaint to JY and 7Sage about the curse words.
"Bruh..." (rhymes with Duh...) I couldn't care less about the videos; not my learning style. Perhaps you should do something constructive, like submit a complaint to JY and 7Sage about the vids, instead of presuming to tell other people what you believe they should think is important.
y’all need to forreals chill out. It’s really not all that seriously. Plus its good to laugh a little during these serious studying sessions
These people ask for feedback on the curriculum as a whole, language is part of it, that’s my honest feedback because it bothers ME. Yes, they can do whatever they want. In the same way, I can freely express what I believe, even more so when feedback is requested, whether or not you agree with it.
This guy is funny af
who is writing these LOL
The LSAT writers are evil motherfuckers.
In all fairness, dolphins are evil themselves.
ive somehow gotten on Dolphin hating Tiktok and apparently, they are evil.
They're kind of like orcas in the sense that they know they are smarter than the other animals around them but they lack the moral compass to not slap stingrays in the air or kill sharks for fun.
@pietroa.parillo yess I am a shark person now
"Congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker!" LOL True, please keep these coming!