Upon understanding the decision was between A and B, I chose A as it seemed more logical to me. I interpreted “we” as indicating a collective effort to ensure the survival of the bighorn. In contrast, Sam’s interpretation suggested a desire to allow nature to take its course. This divergence in perspectives led me to conclude that human intervention should not be considered.
Was stuck between E and A. Didn't pick A at first because the answer choice says "Humans should not intervene..." "Should not" made me doubt it was right. I would've picked it immediately if it said "humans should intervene..."
For those who chose E, I think its important to note that we cannot assume whether Sam and Meil agree with this point. Just because Sam votes to let nature do its thing but Meil wants to intervene, none of that means they believe the sheep won't survive. If anything, we can assume they believe the species will be critically endangered but "not survive" is too far.
For those who chose C, nothing they say agrees or disagrees with what is easier or not. They are discussing what they should do, not what would be the easier option. So the claim is pretty unsupported based on the info in the stimulus.
How can B not be supported by Meli's claim? Wouldn't it be supported to say that the preservation of the bighorn species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals (mountain lions) caused by limiting the mountain lion population? Not that this changes the final answer but just curious.
@ZionBejarano I thought the B was somewhat supported by Meli. She says that we must do what we can to ensure the bighorns survive, even if that means "limiting the mountain lion population". Limiting the population implies losing at least a few individuals, and this would be done to preserve a species. So, you could view B as a potential "general principle" held by Meli. However, it could also be the case that she only cares strongly about this one species.
@josue1climaco (E) is tricky because it uses similar language.
However, the difference is:
meli brings about a possible solution for saving the Bighorns.
the answer choice writes it as if it is the only solution for saving Bighorns.
Hence, this is why we say it is not supported by Meli.
And to go a step further, sam does not mention limiting mountain lions' population, so this answer choice would also be unsupported from at least one view point to begin with.
Never understood how to predict an answer choice until this question. I read the question slowly, understood what they were saying, and went hunting for the answer choice I predicted which was the argument/disagreement of whether or not to interfere. Got it done in 29 seconds.
The reason I chose E instead of A was because of the word "WE". Does "WE" refer to humans? or just the general idea that action should be taken? I took the latter idea, and chose E based off of that. Why should I believe that "WE" means humans? Maybe it's the obvious choice, but I want it derived.
I’m having trouble understanding your thinking. Sam also says “we” and advocates for no action to be taken, so “we” wouldn’t refer to a ‘pro-action’ contingent. In fact, that is the issue they fundamentally disagree about: whether to take action. Neither of them mentions the potential extinction of the sheep. They don’t touch on it, so we don’t know whether they agree or disagree on that exact assertion.
Isn't Meli technically making a value statement by saying "we must do what we can to protect the big horn, even if that means limiting the mountain lion population" (in laymen's terms: screw some of these mountain lions, we need to save the bighorn). Isn't that very similar to the value statement in B that states "one species' preservation is worth the loss of some individuals of another"?
Not saying B is the right answer at all but wouldn't it at least fall to the left towards the 'supported' end of the spectrum for Meli? I don't think her statements provide evidence she is totally ambivalent about B. Sorry I needed a study break lol.
I have the same question, and I also placed B to the left for Meli.
I would also add that "we must do what we can to protect the big horn," would include the "loss of some individuals of another" which could be completed any number of ways (I'm specifically thinking hunting mountain lions).
To say Meli's statement offers no support either way seems wrong. Feel free to correct me.
My reasoning for why B was wrong was that it was too general of a claim. We don't know how either one feels about other species or the principle as a whole - we're only told how they feel about mountain lions and bighorns.
Predicting in these questions helps soooooo much. Just went straight into the answer key choice looking for "intervene" and boom, stopped looking right when I found it
I didn't pick E because it was comparative. Is that an okay way to eliminate possible POI answer choices? Or will there ever be a situation where the answer is comparative or an "If, then" statement
Writing out the spectrum of support is to help you gain a better understanding of the stimulus, but you should be able to answer these questions relatively quickly with your intuition. I recommend that once you are comfortable answering these questions correctly by drawing out the spectrum of support, you should start focusing on labeling the support level of the answer choices in your head (intuition) to reach the target time.
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!
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.
70 comments
I take time to highlight things maybe thats why I always am a little over. Got it right though!
#Feedback the video sections are wrong--the video says all of Meli's point is part of (E).
Quickest answer I've gotten correct thus far!
Got it almost immediately, but I took extra time to go through all of the choices. 22 seconds over. :(
@MarieChavis One right answer! We gotta learn to be confident in ourselves, take the point, and run.
yaya got it right :)
Upon understanding the decision was between A and B, I chose A as it seemed more logical to me. I interpreted “we” as indicating a collective effort to ensure the survival of the bighorn. In contrast, Sam’s interpretation suggested a desire to allow nature to take its course. This divergence in perspectives led me to conclude that human intervention should not be considered.
Was stuck between E and A. Didn't pick A at first because the answer choice says "Humans should not intervene..." "Should not" made me doubt it was right. I would've picked it immediately if it said "humans should intervene..."
i got it right, but i think none of the explaintion make sense...
ayyeee got it right again
I hunted and got it right!
Can the LSAT just be all of these questions plz
I got it right but was stumped by the "not" language
For those who chose E, I think its important to note that we cannot assume whether Sam and Meil agree with this point. Just because Sam votes to let nature do its thing but Meil wants to intervene, none of that means they believe the sheep won't survive. If anything, we can assume they believe the species will be critically endangered but "not survive" is too far.
For those who chose C, nothing they say agrees or disagrees with what is easier or not. They are discussing what they should do, not what would be the easier option. So the claim is pretty unsupported based on the info in the stimulus.
How can B not be supported by Meli's claim? Wouldn't it be supported to say that the preservation of the bighorn species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals (mountain lions) caused by limiting the mountain lion population? Not that this changes the final answer but just curious.
@ZionBejarano What was key for me is thinking of that answer choice as too broad. A general statement goes beyond what they were discussing.
@ZionBejarano I thought the B was somewhat supported by Meli. She says that we must do what we can to ensure the bighorns survive, even if that means "limiting the mountain lion population". Limiting the population implies losing at least a few individuals, and this would be done to preserve a species. So, you could view B as a potential "general principle" held by Meli. However, it could also be the case that she only cares strongly about this one species.
got it right but went over 15 sec. It was pretty easy i must say
Law hub has a very good strategy for approaching PAI questions quickly! I recommending watching their lecture video for those that picked E
@emmalemon Which one specifically?
I thought it was E try to interpret the second speaker claim.
Same
@josue1climaco (E) is tricky because it uses similar language.
However, the difference is:
meli brings about a possible solution for saving the Bighorns.
the answer choice writes it as if it is the only solution for saving Bighorns.
Hence, this is why we say it is not supported by Meli.
And to go a step further, sam does not mention limiting mountain lions' population, so this answer choice would also be unsupported from at least one view point to begin with.
Never understood how to predict an answer choice until this question. I read the question slowly, understood what they were saying, and went hunting for the answer choice I predicted which was the argument/disagreement of whether or not to interfere. Got it done in 29 seconds.
The reason I chose E instead of A was because of the word "WE". Does "WE" refer to humans? or just the general idea that action should be taken? I took the latter idea, and chose E based off of that. Why should I believe that "WE" means humans? Maybe it's the obvious choice, but I want it derived.
#help
None of the answer choices contain the word "we"
I’m having trouble understanding your thinking. Sam also says “we” and advocates for no action to be taken, so “we” wouldn’t refer to a ‘pro-action’ contingent. In fact, that is the issue they fundamentally disagree about: whether to take action. Neither of them mentions the potential extinction of the sheep. They don’t touch on it, so we don’t know whether they agree or disagree on that exact assertion.
@Apieceofstring 'We does mean humans. Which is how and why A was the correct answer choice. E does not mention humans whatsoever.
In a way, this reminds me of Split method recommended by 7sage for RC strategy! (I did RC before LR oops)
Isn't Meli technically making a value statement by saying "we must do what we can to protect the big horn, even if that means limiting the mountain lion population" (in laymen's terms: screw some of these mountain lions, we need to save the bighorn). Isn't that very similar to the value statement in B that states "one species' preservation is worth the loss of some individuals of another"?
Not saying B is the right answer at all but wouldn't it at least fall to the left towards the 'supported' end of the spectrum for Meli? I don't think her statements provide evidence she is totally ambivalent about B. Sorry I needed a study break lol.
I have the same question, and I also placed B to the left for Meli.
I would also add that "we must do what we can to protect the big horn," would include the "loss of some individuals of another" which could be completed any number of ways (I'm specifically thinking hunting mountain lions).
To say Meli's statement offers no support either way seems wrong. Feel free to correct me.
My reasoning for why B was wrong was that it was too general of a claim. We don't know how either one feels about other species or the principle as a whole - we're only told how they feel about mountain lions and bighorns.
Good point. For all we know, Meli could be a huge fan of sheep and not so fond of lions lol
Predicting in these questions helps soooooo much. Just went straight into the answer key choice looking for "intervene" and boom, stopped looking right when I found it
I didn't pick E because it was comparative. Is that an okay way to eliminate possible POI answer choices? Or will there ever be a situation where the answer is comparative or an "If, then" statement
Like this if you picked E
I fell for that trap answer, now I feel silly.
How are we supposed to do the spectrum of support and finish the question in the target time?
Writing out the spectrum of support is to help you gain a better understanding of the stimulus, but you should be able to answer these questions relatively quickly with your intuition. I recommend that once you are comfortable answering these questions correctly by drawing out the spectrum of support, you should start focusing on labeling the support level of the answer choices in your head (intuition) to reach the target time.