i got it right because the other answers seemed worse to me but i was a little confused because to me priscillas argument didn't seem like she was disagreeing with the "promise" or the "potential" of science fiction, more just noticing that science fiction doesn't do better in practice (she was only talking about the skills of the writers and what is more effective in practice, not the potential of the artform itself)
Reading through these comments and I agree with those that said it was a headache to read. One thing that really helps me save time and cut unnecessary information is that if one person refers/ speaks about something that the other doesn't even acknowledge, then I ignore it because it will probably be "merely consistent" with at least one of the speakers. Example: when Priscilla talked about "skillfully envisage" and Lustina did not, I immediately ruled out answers that had to do with "skillfully envisage."
this is clicking nicely and it is such a nice change of pace from where i previously felt like i was learning a whole new language (and was awful at it lol)
Could someone help break this down for me more in a simple way? The video does kinda help, but I'm still getting these wrong and trying to grasp the concept at the same time. Thanks and appreciate any feedback!
@isabellagirjikian Hi! I'll try my best. If I'm being completely honest, I am not using the chart/spectrum of support that 7sage teaches. I think approaching Point at Issue questions like "Most Strongly Supported" questions is a great approach. Also, I think the first part of this lesson, where they talk about the speakers either being explicit vs. implicit about their opinions helped me to better approach those questions.
For this specific example, this was my approach:
1) Read the question.
2) Identify that it's a point at issue question type and tell myself that I'm looking for where the speakers disagree
3) Translate Lutsina's argument/identify the conclusion. Lutsina is saying that futuristic sci-fi is a better source of social criticism than conventional fiction.
4) Translate Priscilla argument/indentify the conclusion. Priscilla is saying that conventional fiction is a better source of social criticism than sci-fi because conventional fiction is grounded in reality.
5) I think from here, we can deduce that they're disagreeing about what which fiction genre serves as a better tool for social criticism.
I would say that in this example, their point of disagreement is explicitly stated. Lutsina, in the last sentence, says "Thus futuristic sci-fi has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism." Richer than what? Than conventional fiction. A comparison is being made here. Priscilla refutes this claim by saying, in the last sentence, "the most effective social criticism results from...conventional fiction." Answer choice C gets us here.
I think definitely having an understanding of the grammar can really help break it down. I too typically get tripped up a lot by the wording, but I was able to break this one down really quickly on what they were comparing without all the extra modifiers. I just kind of ignored them lol and got right to the point. Then went straight to the answers to compare what I had and got it right!
not sure why but this is clicking really easily!! so happy to finally get a concept without having to go through the motions and question my sense of reality
148 comments
got it right but i was eight seconds over. had to keep rereading the stimulus and answer choices
i got it right because the other answers seemed worse to me but i was a little confused because to me priscillas argument didn't seem like she was disagreeing with the "promise" or the "potential" of science fiction, more just noticing that science fiction doesn't do better in practice (she was only talking about the skills of the writers and what is more effective in practice, not the potential of the artform itself)
Understanding the referentials and what they're pointing to really helps me keep track of what the passage is saying
33 seconds over but that was pretty easy!
@jaydenca Same! I got tripped up in the refentials ugh
Reading through these comments and I agree with those that said it was a headache to read. One thing that really helps me save time and cut unnecessary information is that if one person refers/ speaks about something that the other doesn't even acknowledge, then I ignore it because it will probably be "merely consistent" with at least one of the speakers. Example: when Priscilla talked about "skillfully envisage" and Lustina did not, I immediately ruled out answers that had to do with "skillfully envisage."
Was pretty difficult to be honest, but I did get it right first try!
Took me a long time because of the complex language, but I got it right!
between arts passages and science passages, i still prefer the mind-numbing arts passages lol
Honestly reading that hurt my brain and led me to picking the wrong answer. lol
this is clicking nicely and it is such a nice change of pace from where i previously felt like i was learning a whole new language (and was awful at it lol)
this question made me feel like i don't know how to read
Could someone help break this down for me more in a simple way? The video does kinda help, but I'm still getting these wrong and trying to grasp the concept at the same time. Thanks and appreciate any feedback!
@isabellagirjikian Hi! I'll try my best. If I'm being completely honest, I am not using the chart/spectrum of support that 7sage teaches. I think approaching Point at Issue questions like "Most Strongly Supported" questions is a great approach. Also, I think the first part of this lesson, where they talk about the speakers either being explicit vs. implicit about their opinions helped me to better approach those questions.
For this specific example, this was my approach:
1) Read the question.
2) Identify that it's a point at issue question type and tell myself that I'm looking for where the speakers disagree
3) Translate Lutsina's argument/identify the conclusion. Lutsina is saying that futuristic sci-fi is a better source of social criticism than conventional fiction.
4) Translate Priscilla argument/indentify the conclusion. Priscilla is saying that conventional fiction is a better source of social criticism than sci-fi because conventional fiction is grounded in reality.
5) I think from here, we can deduce that they're disagreeing about what which fiction genre serves as a better tool for social criticism.
I would say that in this example, their point of disagreement is explicitly stated. Lutsina, in the last sentence, says "Thus futuristic sci-fi has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism." Richer than what? Than conventional fiction. A comparison is being made here. Priscilla refutes this claim by saying, in the last sentence, "the most effective social criticism results from...conventional fiction." Answer choice C gets us here.
Very stupid mistake by me on this one, totally didn't read the answer choices right
I think definitely having an understanding of the grammar can really help break it down. I too typically get tripped up a lot by the wording, but I was able to break this one down really quickly on what they were comparing without all the extra modifiers. I just kind of ignored them lol and got right to the point. Then went straight to the answers to compare what I had and got it right!
Got it right but this is def a 5 star question
Got it right but it took me 6:43.
the wording in this one made my brain hurt. Got it right but +1 min
i hate the wording on this one but got it right on blind review lol
got it right, but took my time, need to improve in speed
not sure why but this is clicking really easily!! so happy to finally get a concept without having to go through the motions and question my sense of reality
@Jasmin13 It's so refreshing and lets me feel not entirely stupid for at least one lesson lol
@JessM unfortunately very short lived for me lol but happy nonetheless
@Jasmin13 a win is a win
Got it right on the BR, totally flunked the first attempt.
Nope. That was awful.
took me 10 minutes but I got it right!
got it right! :)
i got this right but i HATE the way it was written.