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.
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.
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
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'm kind of confused why B isn't correct for Melly (merely consistent with) since Melly says that "we must do what we can to ensure the survival of the big horn even if it means limiting the population of mountain lion" and B is saying "the preservation of a species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals". wouldn't this be consistent with what Melli is saying meaning that the preservation of a species meaning big horn as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals meaning the loss of a few mountain lion by regulating the population of it?
Is it recommended to perform the spectrum of support analysis on actual questions? Just wondering in terms of timing strategy. It definitely helps elucidate what you might skip over if you're just doing it in your head, but yeah. Wanted to get thoughts on that
Hi, I was wondering if for the "you try" or even "drill" questions, we take out the time? I know we can suggest unlimited timing but it is still very nerve-wracking having the time there and then making it obvious (and discouraging) that we did not solve it in 10 seconds, even though its literally our first time solving it. I understand that it is a timed exam but strengthening your skills is what makes you answer the questions faster. The time should be turned off until maybe after the question is answered.
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?
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.
7
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
51 comments
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
I thought it was E try to interpret the second speaker claim.
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
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.
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
How are we supposed to do the spectrum of support and finish the question in the target time?
All the questions I get right are labelled as low priority ToT
got it right on the first try! =)
Should I still watch the whole lesson even if I get the right answer?
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 got the answer right but I am a major over thinker and had a whole debate in my head
I'm kind of confused why B isn't correct for Melly (merely consistent with) since Melly says that "we must do what we can to ensure the survival of the big horn even if it means limiting the population of mountain lion" and B is saying "the preservation of a species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals". wouldn't this be consistent with what Melli is saying meaning that the preservation of a species meaning big horn as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals meaning the loss of a few mountain lion by regulating the population of it?
Is it recommended to perform the spectrum of support analysis on actual questions? Just wondering in terms of timing strategy. It definitely helps elucidate what you might skip over if you're just doing it in your head, but yeah. Wanted to get thoughts on that
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.
Hi, I was wondering if for the "you try" or even "drill" questions, we take out the time? I know we can suggest unlimited timing but it is still very nerve-wracking having the time there and then making it obvious (and discouraging) that we did not solve it in 10 seconds, even though its literally our first time solving it. I understand that it is a timed exam but strengthening your skills is what makes you answer the questions faster. The time should be turned off until maybe after the question is answered.
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)
If (a) stated that they differ on "whether that should" instead of "should not" would (a) still be correct?
#help (Added by Admin)
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.