If we see a passage with "one suggestion" aren't we supposed to try and look for the authors opinion. I thought that was the entire point.
Don't we always have to find the authors opinion? I understand the question was cut off but that was awfully confusing and now I am second guessing this strategy.
JY went through the process not to confuse you, but to teach you how to actively read. Reading a RC passage is a process. He identified the main conclusion in the first paragraph of the passage and then proceeded to explain the main idea of the entire passage. Just my 2 cents.
i didn't like the switch up at first but it did teach me that 1. you need to focus on the question is asking (in this case what is the author's main conclusion and 2. to read the whole stimulus carefully otherwise i really might have picked the wrong answer.
I believe my intuition is pretty strong because when I first read the first paragraph, I thought, "Wait a minute... this argument is only giving one suggestion, there has to be more to this," so when you tricked us, I was relieved that I was correct. LOL. (if that makes any sense, but I get everyones frustration)
#feedback This was not an effective presentation of the lesson. Showing only half the stimulus and half of the answer choices first was more confusing than it was demonstrative of the point that it can be easy to cherry pick good-looking information/answer options.
Why not have all the answer options visible first? A,B,C,D,E... That way I try it myself first. Then compare with the video tutorial or the written explanation. Now the order is all jumbled
#feedback The written portion below does not discuss the second portion of the stim like the video does it merely stops after reading the sentence "Many animal species, after all, ..." For those who decided to read everything instead, like me, it would be good if you could update this.
#feedback Love hand writing the stimulus that was first presented and then proceeding to write the question stem and answer choices directly underneath because why would I have possibly considered you were hiding half of the stimulus from us.
Im confused by the use of the middle sentence (Coral reefs are colorful, and, therefore, camouflage the colorful fish) as both a hypothesis and a conclusion
it is a H for the phenomena of why fish by coral reefs have colors
it is a conclusion for the P of After all, animal species use camouflage to protect themselves.
I guess Im just struggling with understanding the interplay here between how this middle sentence can be both the hypothesis and the conclusion
I guess its functioning differently in relation to different parts of the prompt? but it feels like I can see how its a hypothesis but its harder for me to understand how its a conclusion (premise and conclusion are like throwing a ball and being caught). The video said something about the use of 'after all' as being a introductory term for a premise, but then how do I know that it realtes to that middle sentence as a conclusion? I tried to go back to my notes-- I remember at the end of the foundational stuff there was a section where the videos tried to explain the relationship between premise> conclusion and phenomena> hypothesis, but then I went back and I think it was more about wondering if the relationship between cause> effect is actually cuasla or correlative and then how you would use P>H in that case. I dont know if it was covered or I was just supposed to know this? Anyone can explain? Or perahps Im overcomplicating it?
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.
125 comments
PLOT TWISTTTT
If we see a passage with "one suggestion" aren't we supposed to try and look for the authors opinion. I thought that was the entire point.
Don't we always have to find the authors opinion? I understand the question was cut off but that was awfully confusing and now I am second guessing this strategy.
Yay! back to videos!
does the video just no play for anyone else
uno reverse
Guysss don't be so hateful! JY is just trying to create different ways of processing questions for us <3
Ummm... trust issues.
JY went through the process not to confuse you, but to teach you how to actively read. Reading a RC passage is a process. He identified the main conclusion in the first paragraph of the passage and then proceeded to explain the main idea of the entire passage. Just my 2 cents.
That was a horrible example. Why would you cause confusion?
i didn't like the switch up at first but it did teach me that 1. you need to focus on the question is asking (in this case what is the author's main conclusion and 2. to read the whole stimulus carefully otherwise i really might have picked the wrong answer.
i was suspicious of the first half of that...
hahahaha he is the trickster
-_- #hatedit
bro that "trick" was so lame. This should've been a 4 minute video.
I believe my intuition is pretty strong because when I first read the first paragraph, I thought, "Wait a minute... this argument is only giving one suggestion, there has to be more to this," so when you tricked us, I was relieved that I was correct. LOL. (if that makes any sense, but I get everyones frustration)
#feedback This was not an effective presentation of the lesson. Showing only half the stimulus and half of the answer choices first was more confusing than it was demonstrative of the point that it can be easy to cherry pick good-looking information/answer options.
JY is such a troll for not showing the full question first. And for what?? Wasting time??
Why not have all the answer options visible first? A,B,C,D,E... That way I try it myself first. Then compare with the video tutorial or the written explanation. Now the order is all jumbled
#feedback The written portion below does not discuss the second portion of the stim like the video does it merely stops after reading the sentence "Many animal species, after all, ..." For those who decided to read everything instead, like me, it would be good if you could update this.
#feedback the question provided in "quick view" is not the same as the one J.Y. parses in the video
#feedback can you give us a change to see all the answer choices before you begin explaining them 1 by 1?
#feedback Love hand writing the stimulus that was first presented and then proceeding to write the question stem and answer choices directly underneath because why would I have possibly considered you were hiding half of the stimulus from us.
I love me some good conclusions
Im confused by the use of the middle sentence (Coral reefs are colorful, and, therefore, camouflage the colorful fish) as both a hypothesis and a conclusion
it is a H for the phenomena of why fish by coral reefs have colors
it is a conclusion for the P of After all, animal species use camouflage to protect themselves.
I guess Im just struggling with understanding the interplay here between how this middle sentence can be both the hypothesis and the conclusion
I guess its functioning differently in relation to different parts of the prompt? but it feels like I can see how its a hypothesis but its harder for me to understand how its a conclusion (premise and conclusion are like throwing a ball and being caught). The video said something about the use of 'after all' as being a introductory term for a premise, but then how do I know that it realtes to that middle sentence as a conclusion? I tried to go back to my notes-- I remember at the end of the foundational stuff there was a section where the videos tried to explain the relationship between premise> conclusion and phenomena> hypothesis, but then I went back and I think it was more about wondering if the relationship between cause> effect is actually cuasla or correlative and then how you would use P>H in that case. I dont know if it was covered or I was just supposed to know this? Anyone can explain? Or perahps Im overcomplicating it?
Is phenomenon just a question?