after watching the video it makes sense with the answer, but is anyone else having a difficult time inferring "limited number of environmental battles" to "resource constraint?" with time pressure on the actual exam, what is a strategy for inferring these connections when they may not be obvious at first or even a second read? i feel dumb..
I picked my answer and didn't pay attention to any other ones. So when I went to the video, answer F: kill all pandas, made my jaw drop. Was not ready for that 😂
I eliminate C for a different reason. I saw it as comparing to non endemic species. so this choice really said, don't worry if the habitat is threatened, if endemic species we will protect. this is a more attractive answer but still not a good choice
The instructor assumes that "Thus, given that only a limited number of environmental battles can be waged" means a lack of resources. There could be other reasons why there are a limited number of environmental battles. This line of thinking is why I didn't choose B: They didn't discuss resources, and I didn't know I was supposed to assume that.
So i got this question right, I was able to go hunting after the stim, and boom B was right there easy. But then I started to affirm with process of elim, and when I came across D I was I used all my tools so say this is the wrong answer, beyond like this is obviously not the intention of the stim, But like it could be, I went to see how many claims in the stimulus supported the idea that conservationist should just give up. Besides like the obvious intention, the fact that they can only fight a limted amount of battles and even the prior line, about the cause of most modern extinictions also feel like they serve in support. Even the fact that edemic species are vulenerable stands in support. ultimately I settled that this is probly wrong casuse the other choice B is even more supported after spending 3 minutes on this question. I feel like I have failed in some regard, and I would like to know what i am doing wrong in my process
I thought it was B but ended up picking C. Does anyone have any tips on how to trust your gut? I tend to always second guess myself with these questions
#feedback I think focusing on the word "only" being too strong in answer A is the better way to eliminate it.
"Many of these hot spots are vulnerable to habitat loss due to commercial development." implies that some hot spots are not vulnerable to habitat loss due to commercial development.
If we aren't bringing in outside knowledge then this is all that we know threatens hot spot habitats. So species in hot spot habitats are not a true subset of "those who are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss" because, again, some are not, the circles merely overlap rather than one being subsumed by the other.
This leads to inefficiency if you concentrate resources on hot spot habitats (answer B) since some don't necessarily need protection, which we trying to avoid due to limited resources. It would be different if answer B read "concentrate their resources on protecting vulnerable hot spot habitats".
This makes answer A sound better because you wont be wasting of the resources on any species that isn't "threatened with extinction", better serving the goal of preserving species.
The problem with answer A is with the word "only" because it might sometimes be a more efficient use of resources to help species threatened with extinction due to reasons other than habitat loss. Stopping drag net fishing in the Caribbean could save more species per resources spent than stopping logging in the Amazon.
Would love some thoughts on this. I might be overthinking the whole thing.
what i did was just read the answers and see which of them answers the ultimate question in my mind. "What is threatening hot spots? Comercial Development. How can they be careful with that?" and B for me answered that.
The kill all the pandas part had me laughing lol. I like how sometimes the humor could be a nice element of this intense curriculum
11
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
54 comments
after watching the video it makes sense with the answer, but is anyone else having a difficult time inferring "limited number of environmental battles" to "resource constraint?" with time pressure on the actual exam, what is a strategy for inferring these connections when they may not be obvious at first or even a second read? i feel dumb..
E was attractive but the use of ONLY was a flag. So, I was confident in my choice of B.
[This comment was deleted.]
Taking your time + Writing it out on scratch paper = Eureka
I picked my answer and didn't pay attention to any other ones. So when I went to the video, answer F: kill all pandas, made my jaw drop. Was not ready for that 😂
I eliminate C for a different reason. I saw it as comparing to non endemic species. so this choice really said, don't worry if the habitat is threatened, if endemic species we will protect. this is a more attractive answer but still not a good choice
#feedback I only have the option to change the playback speed on certain videos!
Not kill all the pandas! 😭
I already understood the idea that LSAT would give us only feasible answer choices, but adding in option F really hammered it home. Thanks, J.Y.
#feedback
Should I be concerned that I didn't notice choice (F) until he read it? My jaw literally dropped.
The obvious answer is to kill all the pandas lmao
Choice A opinion: If one is endemic, they face habitat loss; but not all habitat loss are endemic.
I chose F.. Kinda confused as to how it was wrong?
The instructor assumes that "Thus, given that only a limited number of environmental battles can be waged" means a lack of resources. There could be other reasons why there are a limited number of environmental battles. This line of thinking is why I didn't choose B: They didn't discuss resources, and I didn't know I was supposed to assume that.
Was able to get it right on the first try =)
So i got this question right, I was able to go hunting after the stim, and boom B was right there easy. But then I started to affirm with process of elim, and when I came across D I was I used all my tools so say this is the wrong answer, beyond like this is obviously not the intention of the stim, But like it could be, I went to see how many claims in the stimulus supported the idea that conservationist should just give up. Besides like the obvious intention, the fact that they can only fight a limted amount of battles and even the prior line, about the cause of most modern extinictions also feel like they serve in support. Even the fact that edemic species are vulenerable stands in support. ultimately I settled that this is probly wrong casuse the other choice B is even more supported after spending 3 minutes on this question. I feel like I have failed in some regard, and I would like to know what i am doing wrong in my process
kill all the pandas threw me so off guard
are these sample questions taken from actual LSAT tests?
Genius
I side with answer F
I thought it was B but ended up picking C. Does anyone have any tips on how to trust your gut? I tend to always second guess myself with these questions
When we do this type of questions on the test, is it better to read all the answer choices first and then go into the passage?
#feedback I think focusing on the word "only" being too strong in answer A is the better way to eliminate it.
"Many of these hot spots are vulnerable to habitat loss due to commercial development." implies that some hot spots are not vulnerable to habitat loss due to commercial development.
If we aren't bringing in outside knowledge then this is all that we know threatens hot spot habitats. So species in hot spot habitats are not a true subset of "those who are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss" because, again, some are not, the circles merely overlap rather than one being subsumed by the other.
This leads to inefficiency if you concentrate resources on hot spot habitats (answer B) since some don't necessarily need protection, which we trying to avoid due to limited resources. It would be different if answer B read "concentrate their resources on protecting vulnerable hot spot habitats".
This makes answer A sound better because you wont be wasting of the resources on any species that isn't "threatened with extinction", better serving the goal of preserving species.
The problem with answer A is with the word "only" because it might sometimes be a more efficient use of resources to help species threatened with extinction due to reasons other than habitat loss. Stopping drag net fishing in the Caribbean could save more species per resources spent than stopping logging in the Amazon.
Would love some thoughts on this. I might be overthinking the whole thing.
what i did was just read the answers and see which of them answers the ultimate question in my mind. "What is threatening hot spots? Comercial Development. How can they be careful with that?" and B for me answered that.
The kill all the pandas part had me laughing lol. I like how sometimes the humor could be a nice element of this intense curriculum