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?
#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?
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?
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?
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 was following this up until Yoko's Most Strongly Supported claim. Although D is clearly stated at the beginning of her argument (premise), how is the answer not B (strongly supported by her conclusion)??? Could use help in distinguishing this. Thanks
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
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.
40 comments
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 it really feasible to treat these like two MSS questions, considering the 1:26 time constraint?
#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?
I almost chose b but snapped in and went with d
Tricky tricky
Need more example
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?
This was such a helpful explanation on PAI questions.
Generally, can we shy away from selecting comparative answers?
This might be the easiest LSAT question I've ever seen. I can't possibly be proud of myself for getting it right
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
That made perfect sense!
Got this super easily! Yay!
if only all LSAT questions were as easy as this one smh
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
Is there anyway I can get these as PDFS
I was following this up until Yoko's Most Strongly Supported claim. Although D is clearly stated at the beginning of her argument (premise), how is the answer not B (strongly supported by her conclusion)??? Could use help in distinguishing this. Thanks
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
#help im unable to edit the time speed on this?