Completely off topic but the way 7sage breaks down sentences in the stimulus would be so helpful for learning languages and knowing how each part of a sentence modifies the meaning
I think these kinds of questions are a good example of the importance of ONLY drawing from info in the stimulus and avoid giving into outside knowledge
#feedback the explanation for why B is wrong would have made much more sense if it started with the relevant text (Though... engines) instead of discussing a hypothetical analogy that we shouldn't make.
@Carolinehink1 This is a level one difficulty. If you click on "show question" on top (near the comments tab) and then go to analytics, it will show you. I'm using a mac and that's how it shows up for me. Hope this helps!
What is the best way to determine whether a definition following a technical term (such as the bit about acoustical range) is provided solely for comprehension purposes or is independently relevant to the argument as a whole?
@Katharína For most LSAT questions, technical terms will be comprehension. LSAT will include elaboration or definition as some ideas are not general knowledge
I find it hard to focus on his videos but I feel as if in the initial video the speaker tends to over-explain or like confuse me more than when I started. Does anyone feel the same or is it just me?
Wouldn't E be contradictory... I may be mistaken here, if anyone can elaborate on the logic of this for me I would really appreciate it. If the passage says "the killer whales do not seem to behave differently around running boat engines" and E says "Killer whales would probably be more successful in finding food if boats did not travel through their habitats." then wouldn't this be contradictory to the claim in the passage?
Not necessarily. These two are independent from one another -- the killer whales' success in finding food is separate from whether there are changes in behaviour due to the noise. Whether they are successful in finding food or not may have to do with many other factors separate from behaviour, it is not implied nor does it follow that just because they do not seem to behave differently around the boat engines that they would probably be more successful in finding food in the absence of the boats.
In doing so you are assuming that there is an implied connection between the two despite the fact that the stimulus mentions nothing about their ability to hunt for food -- its main claims regard communication. Hope this helps!
C felt extremely obvious. I got the answer within like 15 seconds of reading the answers after the stimulus. Should it feel that obvious? All the other answer choices were clearly incorrect to me.
Answers feeling obvious is a great sign that things are becoming more intuitive for you. However, this is a very easy question. There will be many more questions whose answer will not feel obvious whatsoever, especially under time restraints. So it is good to learn how to answer questions even when you are unsure.
I thought this too, but communication inherently implies an exchange of information. Well if you can't hear the information given to you, how can you possibly communicate? If I say hello to a deaf person, but they can't hear the sound or see my lips, are we properly communicating? I would say no.
You might next think; "Well there are other forms of communication outside of sound!" Well yes this is true, our argument tells out right that these whales communicate through sound (screams and squeals). Trying to come up with any other form of communication outside of that is purely an assumption on our part, because it exists outside the parameters this argument.
Not an assumption, because the premise says that whales communicate through screams and squeals which they hear, so not being able to hear these screams means not being able to communicate.
I got down to B and C. However I eliminated B because of the language "less likely". Would this still be a correct way to answer this. What I thought was it only said that there communication would be affected not that their less likely to want to communicate. I thought that even though it's affected they still may want to communicate.
I understand how we eliminated B based off biting in outside information but couldn't we also just have eliminated B by pointing to the author's concession point where it says killer whales tend to not behave differently around these boat noises so essentially not making it either more likely or less likely for them to communicate
I was between B and C and was very reluctant to pick C because of the strength of such conclusion comparable to B. However, I came to the same realization that JY did: if they don't behave differently, then they wouldn't be more or less likely to communicate. Made C the only answer choice that flowed from the passage.
Taking the time to carefully translate and understand the stimulus increases my chances of selecting the correct answer. I focus on thoroughly comprehending the passage, and that is my main focus when reviewing the answer choices. I also make sure to highlight indicators to avoid selecting the wrong answer. I tend to fall short when i do not focus on indicators also. it changes the meaning almost instantly.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
61 comments
Completely off topic but the way 7sage breaks down sentences in the stimulus would be so helpful for learning languages and knowing how each part of a sentence modifies the meaning
I think these kinds of questions are a good example of the importance of ONLY drawing from info in the stimulus and avoid giving into outside knowledge
#feedback the explanation for why B is wrong would have made much more sense if it started with the relevant text (Though... engines) instead of discussing a hypothetical analogy that we shouldn't make.
For MC-MSS questions:
The right answer will have their likelihood of being true dramatically change in the positive direction.
For example, reading through the answers before reading the stimulus. Does reading the stimulus then improve the answer's likelihood of being true?
i like that it has lessons to review
#feedback it would be interesting to see the difficulty of these sample questions
@Carolinehink1 This is a level one difficulty. If you click on "show question" on top (near the comments tab) and then go to analytics, it will show you. I'm using a mac and that's how it shows up for me. Hope this helps!
A cooked me
u cooked on this one
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge No better way to put it Zach who is indeed in charge.
What is the best way to determine whether a definition following a technical term (such as the bit about acoustical range) is provided solely for comprehension purposes or is independently relevant to the argument as a whole?
@Katharína For most LSAT questions, technical terms will be comprehension. LSAT will include elaboration or definition as some ideas are not general knowledge
This was excellent
This was a great lesson, definitely helped clear up a bit of the confusion from the previous lesson
Wow, this really is like a puzzle set, you find two pieces and so you try to find the right piece to fit in with those two pieces (or more)
I cannot see the video, only audio. Why is that?!
I find it hard to focus on his videos but I feel as if in the initial video the speaker tends to over-explain or like confuse me more than when I started. Does anyone feel the same or is it just me?
@AamaniThompsonlaw25 I agree, I've realized sometimes it helps if I end the video early and move on.
is this super easy for anyone else? i knew the answer right away
@DillonDavidesfahani yes. I would love lessons like this on some of the level 5 difficulty questions. Maybe those will appear later in the course
@DillonDavidesfahani Do you want a cookie?
I also thought B was wrong because it says it doesn't change their behavior and communicating is a behavior.
Wouldn't E be contradictory... I may be mistaken here, if anyone can elaborate on the logic of this for me I would really appreciate it. If the passage says "the killer whales do not seem to behave differently around running boat engines" and E says "Killer whales would probably be more successful in finding food if boats did not travel through their habitats." then wouldn't this be contradictory to the claim in the passage?
Not necessarily. These two are independent from one another -- the killer whales' success in finding food is separate from whether there are changes in behaviour due to the noise. Whether they are successful in finding food or not may have to do with many other factors separate from behaviour, it is not implied nor does it follow that just because they do not seem to behave differently around the boat engines that they would probably be more successful in finding food in the absence of the boats.
In doing so you are assuming that there is an implied connection between the two despite the fact that the stimulus mentions nothing about their ability to hunt for food -- its main claims regard communication. Hope this helps!
C felt extremely obvious. I got the answer within like 15 seconds of reading the answers after the stimulus. Should it feel that obvious? All the other answer choices were clearly incorrect to me.
Answers feeling obvious is a great sign that things are becoming more intuitive for you. However, this is a very easy question. There will be many more questions whose answer will not feel obvious whatsoever, especially under time restraints. So it is good to learn how to answer questions even when you are unsure.
Is there a small assumption in C being made that by impairing their ability to communicate is the same as damaging their hearing loss?
I thought this too, but communication inherently implies an exchange of information. Well if you can't hear the information given to you, how can you possibly communicate? If I say hello to a deaf person, but they can't hear the sound or see my lips, are we properly communicating? I would say no.
You might next think; "Well there are other forms of communication outside of sound!" Well yes this is true, our argument tells out right that these whales communicate through sound (screams and squeals). Trying to come up with any other form of communication outside of that is purely an assumption on our part, because it exists outside the parameters this argument.
Not an assumption, because the premise says that whales communicate through screams and squeals which they hear, so not being able to hear these screams means not being able to communicate.
communicate -> hearing screams
/hearing screams -> /communicate
I got down to B and C. However I eliminated B because of the language "less likely". Would this still be a correct way to answer this. What I thought was it only said that there communication would be affected not that their less likely to want to communicate. I thought that even though it's affected they still may want to communicate.
I understand how we eliminated B based off biting in outside information but couldn't we also just have eliminated B by pointing to the author's concession point where it says killer whales tend to not behave differently around these boat noises so essentially not making it either more likely or less likely for them to communicate
This was one of the reasons it was not supported by the answer choice.
Nice
I was between B and C and was very reluctant to pick C because of the strength of such conclusion comparable to B. However, I came to the same realization that JY did: if they don't behave differently, then they wouldn't be more or less likely to communicate. Made C the only answer choice that flowed from the passage.
YES!!!
got correct!!
Taking the time to carefully translate and understand the stimulus increases my chances of selecting the correct answer. I focus on thoroughly comprehending the passage, and that is my main focus when reviewing the answer choices. I also make sure to highlight indicators to avoid selecting the wrong answer. I tend to fall short when i do not focus on indicators also. it changes the meaning almost instantly.