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.
For the sake of saving time in these question on test day, in this category if I see an answer I think is clearly right should I just skip to the next question, or is it still worth reading over the other options?
Never skip over reading the other questions as you may come across what appears to be two right answers which causes you to pay more attention to the original answer you think is right to reveal a grammar word is incorrect and can save you from falling into a trap answer. I think as we get deeper down the line into the curriculum, J.Y. will teach us how to save time.
It really helped from the previous lessonn knowing that if the stem says "agree/disagree" it''s likely to be more explicit vs. "suggest/support" (implicit)
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
The reasoning for B (for Meli) needs to be explained more in-depth. "The preservation of a species as a whole is more important ("We must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn") than the loss of a few individuals ("limiting the mountain lion population"). Yes, it's a generally reasonable claim taken outside this conversation, but it also seems to be reasonably inferable, if not outright stated by Meli within the conversation. #feedback
I agree with you that the argument can definitely be made that B does not fit as "merely consistent" in Meli's case. But, I wouldn't get too hung up on it. It's still very clearly a flawed answer choice for two reasons:
1. Even if you could make the argument that support is implied for answer choice B in the case of Meli, an implied answer is never going to beat out an answer that is explicitly stated on the spectrum of support (answer A).
2. Remember that you are looking for a point of disagreement between the two (Meli and Sam). Sam says nothing about whether the preservation of a species is more important than the loss of a few individuals.
I agree with the answer, but I think the analysis of Meli's argument isn't completely right. When you look at option B, it's supported by Meli's argument because Meli is saying we should limit the population of the mountain lions (a few of a population) in order to save the whole of the lambs (an entire population), so she believes that to saving a population is more important than losing a few individuals.
Something that helped me is that it has 'Even if'. Even if is more of a concession. Meli saying: "Even if we have to do this" sounds like an unfortunate possibility she would rather not make --an ultimatum of sorts-- and is not the point of disagreement, just an option -- again, a concession.
This answer choice would make more sense if Sam then disagreed with what Meli said. Remember to focus on the second argument; I think of the first argument as context.
@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.
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.
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.
84 comments
I got the answer right but I am a major over thinker and had a whole debate in my head
thats why one day, you'll be a great attorney, all people that gravitate toward this field have this tendency, always doubting.
Can the LSAT just be all of these questions plz
Those that read A and submitted the drill and BR without even reading the rest of the answers, gang -->
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.
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.
got it right but went over 15 sec. It was pretty easy i must say
For the sake of saving time in these question on test day, in this category if I see an answer I think is clearly right should I just skip to the next question, or is it still worth reading over the other options?
#help (Added by Admin)
I also have the same question #help
Never skip over reading the other questions as you may come across what appears to be two right answers which causes you to pay more attention to the original answer you think is right to reveal a grammar word is incorrect and can save you from falling into a trap answer. I think as we get deeper down the line into the curriculum, J.Y. will teach us how to save time.
I have the same question #help
Just skip to the next question.
Like this if you picked E
I fell for that trap answer, now I feel silly.
Quickest answer I've gotten correct thus far!
Does the time you spent and the target time give anyone else anxiety? I feel like I'm so slow in making sure I pick the right answer.
Same here, but I'm getting them correct. Hopefully time will come.
It really helped from the previous lessonn knowing that if the stem says "agree/disagree" it''s likely to be more explicit vs. "suggest/support" (implicit)
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
got it right on the first try! =)
The reasoning for B (for Meli) needs to be explained more in-depth. "The preservation of a species as a whole is more important ("We must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn") than the loss of a few individuals ("limiting the mountain lion population"). Yes, it's a generally reasonable claim taken outside this conversation, but it also seems to be reasonably inferable, if not outright stated by Meli within the conversation. #feedback
I agree with you that the argument can definitely be made that B does not fit as "merely consistent" in Meli's case. But, I wouldn't get too hung up on it. It's still very clearly a flawed answer choice for two reasons:
1. Even if you could make the argument that support is implied for answer choice B in the case of Meli, an implied answer is never going to beat out an answer that is explicitly stated on the spectrum of support (answer A).
2. Remember that you are looking for a point of disagreement between the two (Meli and Sam). Sam says nothing about whether the preservation of a species is more important than the loss of a few individuals.
I agree with the answer, but I think the analysis of Meli's argument isn't completely right. When you look at option B, it's supported by Meli's argument because Meli is saying we should limit the population of the mountain lions (a few of a population) in order to save the whole of the lambs (an entire population), so she believes that to saving a population is more important than losing a few individuals.
Something that helped me is that it has 'Even if'. Even if is more of a concession. Meli saying: "Even if we have to do this" sounds like an unfortunate possibility she would rather not make --an ultimatum of sorts-- and is not the point of disagreement, just an option -- again, a concession.
This answer choice would make more sense if Sam then disagreed with what Meli said. Remember to focus on the second argument; I think of the first argument as context.
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I think in this case B means saving the lion population is more important than losing a few sheep. Meli disagrees with this.
I take time to highlight things maybe thats why I always am a little over. Got it right though!
I got it right but was stumped by the "not" language
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.
All the questions I get right are labelled as low priority ToT
thats bc u got it right, if u got it wrong it would be high priority
In a way, this reminds me of Split method recommended by 7sage for RC strategy! (I did RC before LR oops)
Got it right immediately but in the BR second guessed myself bc it felt too easy
I hunted and got it right!
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.
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
@matthewd52 The way I think of it is:
what you said about B is technically an addition to Meli's point. Sam does not get to contribute a second time.
Its almost like: Sam: X
Meli: no X, but Y
Y here is (B), Sam. Technically Sam does not get to disagree with what Meli says; it's Meli who disagrees with what Sam says.
I hope this helps!