If I am getting the You Try questions correct super quickly, should I still be watching the whole explanation or do I just keep it moving? This question took me 39 seconds total and I immediately understood what answer was correct. I want to be thorough with my studying but I also don't want to waste my time.
@Mowers37 I only tend to watch the video and look into the question if I was not 100% sure with what I answered. If you answered with 100% certainty, watching the video and explanation may cause someone to start overthinking or get confused about something they originally weren't. I'd put that time towards continuing with the curriculum.
Curious how others are approaching this - I have been getting the 'you try it' and 'drill practice' questions right over the last few LR modules without exceeding time constraints too much. I spend time reviewing questions I get wrong in-depth, and log them in my wrong answer journal (along with why my choices were wrong and why the right choice is correct) but I'm wondering if I should be doing the same for the questions I answer correctly? I don't want to brush over an opportunity to reinforce the lessons but I also don't want to spend ages working through this content.
@hjr210400 So I am doing it similar to how you are by reviewing the ones I get wrong and then writing them down; however, for the correct answers I only tend to write them down or review them only if I took a long time or struggled with the answering the question quickly. I agree that I don't want to be working on this for forever by writing everything down so I think at least for me only correct ones that I knew quickly and were fully able to understand I didn't write down or in-depth review.
Here's my notes from the BR, including corrections that I made to my reasoning following the rest of the lesson. Hopefully this helps anyone else who might have also had trouble figuring out what was supported and what was merely consistent.
A. Sam states that humans should let nature take its course. Meli argues that "we" must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn. This sounds like they both believe in different approaches re: human intervention.
Support — AntiSupport
B. Sam seems to believe that the preservation of the bighorn is not necessary, but is hopeful that it will happen. This is merely consistent with the idea in B. Meli would agree with this point, however, we don't have matching degrees of support.
Consistent —SupportConsistent
This is not supported, as I previously imagined, because the statement is too broad. It's possible that Meli wouldn't feel this way about other species. We have to remember that we are talking about the animals in the stimulus: mountain lions and bighorn sheep.
C. Irrelevant. We are not discussing the ease in which we can ensure species preservation.
Merely Consistent
D. Irrelevant. Neither party states that the mountain lion will be driven to extinction.
Merely Consistent
E. This claim is consistent with Meli's view, but not supported by it. It is anti-supported by Sam's position, as Sam has hope that the population will survive even without limiting the mountain lion population.
AntiSupport Consistent — Consistent
Sam's position is not anti-supported because it is unknown if what Sam believes is that the sheep will survive or not. Because belief = knowledge, and we do not know what Sam believes beyond their hopes, this position is merely consistent with.
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)
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.
84 comments
My intuition was steering me away from A because of "Humans" but that's what they were implying so I ended up picking it lol
If I am getting the You Try questions correct super quickly, should I still be watching the whole explanation or do I just keep it moving? This question took me 39 seconds total and I immediately understood what answer was correct. I want to be thorough with my studying but I also don't want to waste my time.
@Mowers37 I only tend to watch the video and look into the question if I was not 100% sure with what I answered. If you answered with 100% certainty, watching the video and explanation may cause someone to start overthinking or get confused about something they originally weren't. I'd put that time towards continuing with the curriculum.
@yengibaryanh Awesome advice, thank you so much!
@yengibaryanh Great advice.
Curious how others are approaching this - I have been getting the 'you try it' and 'drill practice' questions right over the last few LR modules without exceeding time constraints too much. I spend time reviewing questions I get wrong in-depth, and log them in my wrong answer journal (along with why my choices were wrong and why the right choice is correct) but I'm wondering if I should be doing the same for the questions I answer correctly? I don't want to brush over an opportunity to reinforce the lessons but I also don't want to spend ages working through this content.
@hjr210400 So I am doing it similar to how you are by reviewing the ones I get wrong and then writing them down; however, for the correct answers I only tend to write them down or review them only if I took a long time or struggled with the answering the question quickly. I agree that I don't want to be working on this for forever by writing everything down so I think at least for me only correct ones that I knew quickly and were fully able to understand I didn't write down or in-depth review.
@JuliaSchroeder Lovely to hear, thanks for the reply!
Here's my notes from the BR, including corrections that I made to my reasoning following the rest of the lesson. Hopefully this helps anyone else who might have also had trouble figuring out what was supported and what was merely consistent.
A. Sam states that humans should let nature take its course. Meli argues that "we" must do what we can to ensure the survival of the bighorn. This sounds like they both believe in different approaches re: human intervention.
Support — AntiSupport
B. Sam seems to believe that the preservation of the bighorn is not necessary, but is hopeful that it will happen. This is merely consistent with the idea in B.
Meli would agree with this point, however, we don't have matching degrees of support.Consistent —
SupportConsistentThis is not supported, as I previously imagined, because the statement is too broad. It's possible that Meli wouldn't feel this way about other species. We have to remember that we are talking about the animals in the stimulus: mountain lions and bighorn sheep.
C. Irrelevant. We are not discussing the ease in which we can ensure species preservation.
Merely Consistent
D. Irrelevant. Neither party states that the mountain lion will be driven to extinction.
Merely Consistent
E. This claim is consistent with Meli's view, but not supported by it.
It is anti-supported by Sam's position, asSam has hope that the population will survive even without limiting the mountain lion population.AntiSupportConsistent — ConsistentSam's position is not anti-supported because it is unknown if what Sam believes is that the sheep will survive or not. Because belief = knowledge, and we do not know what Sam believes beyond their hopes, this position is merely consistent with.
Those that read A and submitted the drill and BR without even reading the rest of the answers, gang -->
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)
Got it right immediately but in the BR second guessed myself bc it felt too easy
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..."
@nedyvelazquez same! ended up choosing "e" but makes sense of why it isn't! so 0/1 .... :/
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.