Him taking the lsat with us inspires me to finish this journey out so that i may be as awesome like him, jimmy, who not only is the main character form the hit tv show, better call saul on AMC, but is also an aspiring lawyer.
Can anyone help me understand how I understand this lesson better than I understand the MSS?Like I was bombing the drills but this is way more easier to grasp for some reason #feedback
I found that overthinking MSS gets me pretty bad results, on my last MSS drill literally every question I would have got right initially but I overthinked and ended up choosing an incorrect answer. I find that if you think it's the answer, especially on MSS then it likely is.
Am replying to this thread to share my solidarity over this statement. I had a hard time getting MSS drills 100% right. I know I'll get it mastered one day but I decided to move on after days of drilling...
I also overthought many questions and sometimes my first answer was right... 🥲
look at the answer choices and ask yourself, would speaker 1 nod at this? would speaker 2 shake their head at this? if yes to both questions then the answer is correct.
Example 1) Peter and Yoko disagree over whether today's children's stories:
Peter: Unlike in the past, most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them. They should, though. Children need to learn the consequences of being bad.
Yoko: Children's stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children. Surely that's an improvement.
Peter believes Most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them
Yoko disagrees, she believes stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children
D. tend to have clearly immoral characters in them. This is the answer.
Why?
Because Peter believes most children's stories don't have immoral characters in them. He disagrees with D.
Yoko agrees with D, "Children's stores still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them".
#feedback after placing each answer choice on the spectrum from ES to C to Contra for the first speaker, it was identified that E and D fell on either end of the spectrum, so would it be faster and advisable to just take a look at options D and E for the second speaker to see which one would fall on the opposite end of where that option was located on the spectrum for the first speaker? Is that a good way to approach it since the options that fall in the middle will most likely not be a correct disagreement/agreement point anyway because its consistent?
While I understand why D. is the correct answer choice in this case, I'm struggling on the broader point of how to assess the reasonableness of assumptions.
When assessing Yoko's claim as a MSS question, JY says B. is unsupported or slightly supported at best. This confused me because I think it is reasonable to assume that if the characters are less frightening, the story will be less frightening. I don't think this conclusion is strongly implied, but I do think it is somewhat implied because while there is an assumption it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Are there any tips or guidelines to assessing an assumption's reasonableness? How do I contend with what feels like a subjective assessment of how "reasonable" an assumption is?
@mh212529 Late reply maybe it can help others in the future through. To be honest I look at it like this. First the question stem sets up what you are looking for: it states that both Peter and Yoko "disagree," this is signaling the correct answer should be explicit. Not implied but rather "obvious." Therefore, throwaway the notion of needing an assumption unless there are key words indicating an implicit answer. Where answer choice B goes wrong is it states, "tends to be less frightening," only Yoko said anything about stories being "frightening." Peter did not refer to frightening in any realm of conversation. To make a connection even one based on disagreement would be making an assumption that Peter in some way was addressing current stories as being "frightening," and that would be incorrect. Think of these questions like geometry, most of the correct and incorrect answers have proofs and solid reasoning as to why it's either correct or incorrect. Next time you get hung up play devil's advocate and try to reason why your answer would be correct or incorrect and vice versa. If this helps leave a like so I know.
@JackFoley No, this was mainly to break it down for you, to see the foundation. I feel as though this is still important as in the future, if I'm stuck or doing a BR at a PAI question, I think this would be a good way to break it down. Hope this helps and good luck!
In this situation, is it risky to immediately cross out the ‘shoulds,’ i.e. options that provide recommendation? My understanding is that the dialogue is a discussion of facts rather than recommendations, and the word ‘should’ implies/denotes difference in recommendation, not facts.
For this type of question, is it unnecessary to identify each author's conclusion? Because we're just searching for support for agreement/disagreement in the information provided?
Would it be fair to use the pre-phrasing technique when you know the answer choice is explicit? I looked at the question, then read the stimulus, and said to myself they disagree about whether the stories clearly have immoral characters. I saw D within a few seconds. Can this work on all questions that are explicit?
Hello! I think I found a mistake. "Answer Choice (E) should help children learn the consequences of being bad. (E) isn’t exactly stated explicitly, but it’s very strongly applied". Is it supposed to say implied instead of applied? #feedback
51 comments
if only all LSAT questions were as easy as this one smh
Whattttt that would be a perfect world. Can you imagine all the stress/ anxiety I would lose??
This might be the easiest LSAT question I've ever seen. I can't possibly be proud of myself for getting it right
real
Him taking the lsat with us inspires me to finish this journey out so that i may be as awesome like him, jimmy, who not only is the main character form the hit tv show, better call saul on AMC, but is also an aspiring lawyer.
Holy cow it's Jimmy, the main character from the hit TV show, Better Call Saul on AMC!
@namchenry35 no dont say that I want to think I am busting the curve
Nice that was easy. Wait. Why is there 7 minutes left?
Can anyone help me understand how I understand this lesson better than I understand the MSS?Like I was bombing the drills but this is way more easier to grasp for some reason #feedback
Forreal I gave up on MSS LOL
Me too!
im glad were in the same boat MSS is not computing with my brain
I found that overthinking MSS gets me pretty bad results, on my last MSS drill literally every question I would have got right initially but I overthinked and ended up choosing an incorrect answer. I find that if you think it's the answer, especially on MSS then it likely is.
Same thing is happening for me lol
Am replying to this thread to share my solidarity over this statement. I had a hard time getting MSS drills 100% right. I know I'll get it mastered one day but I decided to move on after days of drilling...
I also overthought many questions and sometimes my first answer was right... 🥲
MSS is def difficult for me too ! everyday I try to drill them and still can't seem to get 100% on drills lol
This was pretty good, I wish LSAT was THIS easy though ughhh
yeah imma take the gamble and not watch the rest of this video. why overcomplicate things for my brain?
@eimanintikhab I feel like some of the videos overcomplicate things but watch them anyway because of FOMO💀
look at the answer choices and ask yourself, would speaker 1 nod at this? would speaker 2 shake their head at this? if yes to both questions then the answer is correct.
This was such a helpful explanation on PAI questions.
got it right :)
Bro was so quick with that first read through 🤯
That made perfect sense!
Bruh when he started saying “now let’s turn this into a mss question” I clicked off so fast like no… just no…
Example 1) Peter and Yoko disagree over whether today's children's stories:
Peter: Unlike in the past, most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them. They should, though. Children need to learn the consequences of being bad.
Yoko: Children's stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children. Surely that's an improvement.
Peter believes Most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them
Yoko disagrees, she believes stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children
D. tend to have clearly immoral characters in them. This is the answer.
Why?
Because Peter believes most children's stories don't have immoral characters in them. He disagrees with D.
Yoko agrees with D, "Children's stores still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them".
Generally, can we shy away from selecting comparative answers?
Got this super easily! Yay!
#feedback after placing each answer choice on the spectrum from ES to C to Contra for the first speaker, it was identified that E and D fell on either end of the spectrum, so would it be faster and advisable to just take a look at options D and E for the second speaker to see which one would fall on the opposite end of where that option was located on the spectrum for the first speaker? Is that a good way to approach it since the options that fall in the middle will most likely not be a correct disagreement/agreement point anyway because its consistent?
While I understand why D. is the correct answer choice in this case, I'm struggling on the broader point of how to assess the reasonableness of assumptions.
When assessing Yoko's claim as a MSS question, JY says B. is unsupported or slightly supported at best. This confused me because I think it is reasonable to assume that if the characters are less frightening, the story will be less frightening. I don't think this conclusion is strongly implied, but I do think it is somewhat implied because while there is an assumption it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Are there any tips or guidelines to assessing an assumption's reasonableness? How do I contend with what feels like a subjective assessment of how "reasonable" an assumption is?
#help
@mh212529 Late reply maybe it can help others in the future through. To be honest I look at it like this. First the question stem sets up what you are looking for: it states that both Peter and Yoko "disagree," this is signaling the correct answer should be explicit. Not implied but rather "obvious." Therefore, throwaway the notion of needing an assumption unless there are key words indicating an implicit answer. Where answer choice B goes wrong is it states, "tends to be less frightening," only Yoko said anything about stories being "frightening." Peter did not refer to frightening in any realm of conversation. To make a connection even one based on disagreement would be making an assumption that Peter in some way was addressing current stories as being "frightening," and that would be incorrect. Think of these questions like geometry, most of the correct and incorrect answers have proofs and solid reasoning as to why it's either correct or incorrect. Next time you get hung up play devil's advocate and try to reason why your answer would be correct or incorrect and vice versa. If this helps leave a like so I know.
I almost chose b but snapped in and went with d
Need more example
Is it really feasible to treat these like two MSS questions, considering the 1:26 time constraint?
@JackFoley No, this was mainly to break it down for you, to see the foundation. I feel as though this is still important as in the future, if I'm stuck or doing a BR at a PAI question, I think this would be a good way to break it down. Hope this helps and good luck!
@JackFoley Not every question is as simple as this one.
@LsatQueens 174
In this situation, is it risky to immediately cross out the ‘shoulds,’ i.e. options that provide recommendation? My understanding is that the dialogue is a discussion of facts rather than recommendations, and the word ‘should’ implies/denotes difference in recommendation, not facts.
@KelvinChan I agree I am not sure either
For this type of question, is it unnecessary to identify each author's conclusion? Because we're just searching for support for agreement/disagreement in the information provided?
Would it be fair to use the pre-phrasing technique when you know the answer choice is explicit? I looked at the question, then read the stimulus, and said to myself they disagree about whether the stories clearly have immoral characters. I saw D within a few seconds. Can this work on all questions that are explicit?
Is there anyway I can get these as PDFS
You mean the text here? Command+p (iOS) or ctrl+p (windows) and save as PDF
Hello! I think I found a mistake. "Answer Choice (E) should help children learn the consequences of being bad. (E) isn’t exactly stated explicitly, but it’s very strongly applied". Is it supposed to say implied instead of applied? #feedback
Good catch! Thanks a ton for pointing out the typo! I just fixed it. Your keen eye for detail is super appreciated. Keep the feedback coming!