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?
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?
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.
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.
Like other comments I was also thinking A could be supported because of the "over time" line in the stim. But that relies on an assumption I was making about how long these whales have been around boats. I was assuming they have been around boats for their whole lives. But, if boats showed up yesterday, the older and younger whales would have been around them for the same amount of time, having the same hearing damage.
I see why the correct answer is what it is, but this question is a good example of something I have been struggling with, which is differentiating between making assumptions and using context clues from the stimulus. I feel like sometimes it is wrong to use context clues (this stimulus is a good example), but other times it is good to use them... Can someone help me with this? I tend to do this A LOT and don't know how to not overthink it like I do.
Here is an example for this passage. When the stimulus said "engine noise from boats can be loud enough to damage their hearing over time", I look at answer choice A and think:
"well, older killer whales would have more exposure to the noise than younger ones would, which is supported by the "over time" part of the stimulus, and since damaged things tend to not be able to tolerate whatever damaged it in the first as well as one that is less damaged, then it should be that older whales are able to tolerate the noise less than younger ones, so that could make sense."
I see how that might be flawed because you assume that older whales have more exposure to the noise than younger ones do, but does anyone have any advice on how to stop overthinking questions like this? I always use up time and end up getting the wrong answer by doing this.
Was anyone else confused about AC A because the stimulus contains the phrase “over time”? I initially felt as though the fact that boat noise causes hearing damage over time lends support to the idea that older whales would have more hearing damage.
I guess this rests on my assumption that “over time” is referring to the whales’ lifetime, but I can’t think of another more reasonable interpretation. I guess maybe it’s a stretch because the stimulus doesn’t directly talk about young vs. old whales, but curious if anyone else got caught here.
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!
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.
49 comments
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?
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?
is this super easy for anyone else? i knew the answer right away
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?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Is it safe to say that would should eliminate any new info outside of the passage in our answer choices?
Like other comments I was also thinking A could be supported because of the "over time" line in the stim. But that relies on an assumption I was making about how long these whales have been around boats. I was assuming they have been around boats for their whole lives. But, if boats showed up yesterday, the older and younger whales would have been around them for the same amount of time, having the same hearing damage.
I see why the correct answer is what it is, but this question is a good example of something I have been struggling with, which is differentiating between making assumptions and using context clues from the stimulus. I feel like sometimes it is wrong to use context clues (this stimulus is a good example), but other times it is good to use them... Can someone help me with this? I tend to do this A LOT and don't know how to not overthink it like I do.
Here is an example for this passage. When the stimulus said "engine noise from boats can be loud enough to damage their hearing over time", I look at answer choice A and think:
"well, older killer whales would have more exposure to the noise than younger ones would, which is supported by the "over time" part of the stimulus, and since damaged things tend to not be able to tolerate whatever damaged it in the first as well as one that is less damaged, then it should be that older whales are able to tolerate the noise less than younger ones, so that could make sense."
I see how that might be flawed because you assume that older whales have more exposure to the noise than younger ones do, but does anyone have any advice on how to stop overthinking questions like this? I always use up time and end up getting the wrong answer by doing this.
I normally despise these questions when I see them, but ngl this really helped me see how to solve them perfectly.
Was anyone else confused about AC A because the stimulus contains the phrase “over time”? I initially felt as though the fact that boat noise causes hearing damage over time lends support to the idea that older whales would have more hearing damage.
I guess this rests on my assumption that “over time” is referring to the whales’ lifetime, but I can’t think of another more reasonable interpretation. I guess maybe it’s a stretch because the stimulus doesn’t directly talk about young vs. old whales, but curious if anyone else got caught here.
After completing all the lessons for logical reasoning, it is crazy how clear most of this is now! Stick with it ladies and gentlemen!
what a breakdown, wow! so good!! #feedback
this was really nice! helpful to keep in mind