So just to clarify: if an answer choice contains information that hasn't been discussed in the stimulus or information that we cannot determine whether it is true/could be true/could be false, then that answer choice can be dismissed as not being the POI?
The correct answer choice needs to be one that must be true for one person and must be false for the other person? (as we saw on the MSS Must-be-supported scale?)
Is it safe to say that if both speakers have conclusions, a good strategy is to disregard the premises and hunt for the AC based off the conclusions? After getting through what Priscilla was saying at first, I finished the stimulus, went hunting and referenced only the conclusions of both speakers and got the AC correct.
Honestly, when I first read the stems, I was trying to rush it and didn't really understand what it was about. Ended up just seeing answer D had a lot of the same wording and went with it. But, in blind review, I took the time to deep dive the grammar and it helped immensely. I immediately knew what the right answer was after taking a few more seconds to understand each sentence. I need to slow down on these more complex questions as I usually get extra time from the simple ones.
For this question, at the start I ignored the second POV entirely and focused only on what was discussed in Lutsina’s POV and by doing that was able to eliminate choices B and D almost instantly because there was no discussion on new technology or skill level. I was also able to pinpoint C as the most likely answer because it was explicitly stated in the stimulus from Lutsina. From there, I went to Priscilla’s stimulus and read to confirm whether or not she commented on which has more promise of social criticism and because she essentially said it would be conventional fiction I knew C was the answer. This saved me significant time because I was able to derive the answer almost entirely by looking at the more logically laid out section of the stimulus. I’m wondering if this will be an effective system for more disagree questions or if this process could create problems down the road.
Thinking about the Mass Effect games helped me understand the more abstract parts of this stimulus. The setting is highly futuristic, but the primary economic system of the interconnected space civilization consisting of TONS of unique alien races is somehow capitalism, which is a very human convention lol. It helped me grasp part of what the second author is saying, which is how even in speculative fiction, our imaginations tend to circle back to familiar social and capital systems. It's hard to truly conceptualize something radically different from what we know, even more so when you're trying to make social commentary.
TLDR: video games and other media can help you with your LSAT studies
I am struggling to understand the overall content of this question. In general this is the main problem I run into when it comes to LSAT questions. Any advice on how to unpack the stimulus to understand it but in a timely manner?
I got C for ES for Lutsina, but had a hard time pinpointing it for Priscilla due to the grammar and wording. Rushed through it and should've slowed it down
I find it much easier to get the right answer than understand why wrong answers are wrong.
This frustrates me as I feel that I'm actually not getting better at deconstructing LSAT questions, and if the problem was harder, would most likely get it wrong.
I see why C is the only answer here, but I am tripped up by the grammar.
C implies that the phrase "has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism" conveys the same point as "has more promise as a source of social criticism." But they... don't?
As I read it...
"...has the potential to be a richer source" says that something could merely POSSIBLY be a richer source of social criticism.
On the other hand...
"has more promise as a source of social criticism" explicitly states that it has more promise.
In my mind, for these two phrases to convey the same point, the first would need to say something like "...has MORE potential to be a richer source."
I could understand this discrepancy if the question asked what they seem to disagree over. But the question stem explicitly asks what they disagree over, point blank. What am I missing here?
Reading the stimulus of this question sounds like something that would be rattled off by Jordan Peterson. As is the case with many questions on this test lol but this one specifically. Just a bunch of big words and mumbo jumbo.#feedback
Yup got this one wrong, but I think I need to review Complex Argument Structure
0
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.
105 comments
Check the conclusions!!!! Whew I think the extra words are there to exhaust you honestly...
So just to clarify: if an answer choice contains information that hasn't been discussed in the stimulus or information that we cannot determine whether it is true/could be true/could be false, then that answer choice can be dismissed as not being the POI?
The correct answer choice needs to be one that must be true for one person and must be false for the other person? (as we saw on the MSS Must-be-supported scale?)
What role does the that in the beginning of the sentence play other than making the sentence harder to read?
Got it right, but, took me waaaaaay too long. Went over +2:44, yikes lol
For Priscilla's argument what do they mean by radically different ones in answer choice e
This question was interesting because we can eliminate four of the answer choices just by reading the first argument. Dang!
#Feedback. I feel like some of these are over-explained.
Priscilla's first long sentence messed me all up!
Is it safe to say that if both speakers have conclusions, a good strategy is to disregard the premises and hunt for the AC based off the conclusions? After getting through what Priscilla was saying at first, I finished the stimulus, went hunting and referenced only the conclusions of both speakers and got the AC correct.
Can anyone confirm that it is a good strategy.
34 seconds. bam.
Honestly, when I first read the stems, I was trying to rush it and didn't really understand what it was about. Ended up just seeing answer D had a lot of the same wording and went with it. But, in blind review, I took the time to deep dive the grammar and it helped immensely. I immediately knew what the right answer was after taking a few more seconds to understand each sentence. I need to slow down on these more complex questions as I usually get extra time from the simple ones.
It helps if you pick an answer and can say one author agrees with this, the other does not.
For this question, at the start I ignored the second POV entirely and focused only on what was discussed in Lutsina’s POV and by doing that was able to eliminate choices B and D almost instantly because there was no discussion on new technology or skill level. I was also able to pinpoint C as the most likely answer because it was explicitly stated in the stimulus from Lutsina. From there, I went to Priscilla’s stimulus and read to confirm whether or not she commented on which has more promise of social criticism and because she essentially said it would be conventional fiction I knew C was the answer. This saved me significant time because I was able to derive the answer almost entirely by looking at the more logically laid out section of the stimulus. I’m wondering if this will be an effective system for more disagree questions or if this process could create problems down the road.
Thinking about the Mass Effect games helped me understand the more abstract parts of this stimulus. The setting is highly futuristic, but the primary economic system of the interconnected space civilization consisting of TONS of unique alien races is somehow capitalism, which is a very human convention lol. It helped me grasp part of what the second author is saying, which is how even in speculative fiction, our imaginations tend to circle back to familiar social and capital systems. It's hard to truly conceptualize something radically different from what we know, even more so when you're trying to make social commentary.
TLDR: video games and other media can help you with your LSAT studies
I am struggling to understand the overall content of this question. In general this is the main problem I run into when it comes to LSAT questions. Any advice on how to unpack the stimulus to understand it but in a timely manner?
I got it right but it took me 2 minutes SMH
I got C for ES for Lutsina, but had a hard time pinpointing it for Priscilla due to the grammar and wording. Rushed through it and should've slowed it down
I find it much easier to get the right answer than understand why wrong answers are wrong.
This frustrates me as I feel that I'm actually not getting better at deconstructing LSAT questions, and if the problem was harder, would most likely get it wrong.
This was just hard for me to read and comprehend at first.
I got it right but during blind review I assumed it was D. .. Yay?
I got this wrong initially but found my way to the right answer in the blind review.
Will the disagreement typically be found in their conclusion? Or could it also be found in the premise?
I see why C is the only answer here, but I am tripped up by the grammar.
C implies that the phrase "has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism" conveys the same point as "has more promise as a source of social criticism." But they... don't?
As I read it...
"...has the potential to be a richer source" says that something could merely POSSIBLY be a richer source of social criticism.
On the other hand...
"has more promise as a source of social criticism" explicitly states that it has more promise.
In my mind, for these two phrases to convey the same point, the first would need to say something like "...has MORE potential to be a richer source."
I could understand this discrepancy if the question asked what they seem to disagree over. But the question stem explicitly asks what they disagree over, point blank. What am I missing here?
Reading the stimulus of this question sounds like something that would be rattled off by Jordan Peterson. As is the case with many questions on this test lol but this one specifically. Just a bunch of big words and mumbo jumbo.#feedback
E was Sooooo tempting. That comparative grammar lesson saved me!
Yup got this one wrong, but I think I need to review Complex Argument Structure