advise: the key was when Sklar says "My objection to teaching chess to children..." directly gives us the answer that their disagreement is not about the reasoning behind their arguments per say, but wether we should be teaching chess to children at all.
Alright look the first go around it took some time (like 19 sec over) but that's because ya boi was analyzing all the answers. On the exam we don't doubt ourselves frfr
I got this question right, so I understand it is the best answer out of the bunch, but I'm confused on how Sklar saying she has an objection to teaching chess in school means that she explicitly stated it should not be taught. I can have an objection to something but that doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be outlawed, correct?
I have an objection to math - I think it's boring, but I still think it should be taught.
I had circled D first and talked my way out of it because it didn't match in my mind the "ideal" answer choice since it needed an assumption on Talbert's part despite the contradiction for Sklar.
Anyone else get really hung up on the name Sklar? I kept thinking he was mispronouncing Skylar. But after doing the question and the entire lesson it finally hit me that Sklar and Talbert are both last names. #ADHD
This one is confusing if you think too much, hence why I think the best way to approach Point At Issue is to just simplify things as much as you can.
For this question, I simply looked at what they would be disagreeing on, How I see it is that "Teaching children chess" is all that matters, with the rest of the sentence just being context. However, it's tricky because I feel that you can easily say another answer
I was overthinking this question but on my second read I realized Sklar says "my objection to teaching chess" which shows us what they are disagreeing about.
Even though Skylar never talked about "teaching" in retrospect, it's still acceptable to say that it's something they disagree on? It just threw me off because I thought both of them mentioned mental maturity/activity so it was a disagreement on that part.
Would it be a good strategy to see what one talks about and the other doesn't and eliminate the ACs? I am having difficulty with coming up with what is inferred.
I am confused on how Sklar's objection means that he/she means chess shouldn't be taught. He/she doesn't explicitly say, "I object to chess being taught." Sklar just points out one of the reasons why it potentially shouldn't be taught. It's like me saying, "My one objection with teaching children to play basketball is that the children could be studying instead of playing basketball." This does not entail the claim that basketball shouldn't be taught altogether, but instead an issue with teaching children to play basketball. Perhaps I think that children should focus on their studies more than basketball, but it doesn't mean that I altogether reject the teaching of basketball.
Let me know if you can help clear this confusion. Thank you
Could we take it a step further and say that Sklar believes discouragement of carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness has such a societal value? Or would that be taking it too far?
I got this in under 20 seconds just based on "my objection to teaching chess" which to me is an immediate signal that this is the disagreement. Is this a bad tactic?
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.
70 comments
i confused mental maturity with mental activity thinking that they had just reworded it in the answer choices
advise: the key was when Sklar says "My objection to teaching chess to children..." directly gives us the answer that their disagreement is not about the reasoning behind their arguments per say, but wether we should be teaching chess to children at all.
Alright look the first go around it took some time (like 19 sec over) but that's because ya boi was analyzing all the answers. On the exam we don't doubt ourselves frfr
I been getting PAI questions correct but not MSS questions lol
I'm gathering that perhaps the most difficult part of the LSAT is knowing when to make inferences vs. knowing when to avoid traps set by inferences.
I got this question right, so I understand it is the best answer out of the bunch, but I'm confused on how Sklar saying she has an objection to teaching chess in school means that she explicitly stated it should not be taught. I can have an objection to something but that doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be outlawed, correct?
I have an objection to math - I think it's boring, but I still think it should be taught.
I was on the fence with C and D and I should have just gone with my gut.
I had circled D first and talked my way out of it because it didn't match in my mind the "ideal" answer choice since it needed an assumption on Talbert's part despite the contradiction for Sklar.
Bias!
not sure if it's my computer, but the question is glitching. I literally can't read it.
I got A. But now I understand why my answer was wrong...
Are societal and social value the same thing? They were used interchangably in the explanation
Anyone else get really hung up on the name Sklar? I kept thinking he was mispronouncing Skylar. But after doing the question and the entire lesson it finally hit me that Sklar and Talbert are both last names. #ADHD
Got it right in 22 seconds and thought I was really getting it. Then I saw it scored a 1/5 on the hardness scale….ofc
But Talbert doesn't mention teaching
I chose A like an Ahat. I had it narrowed down to A/D and went with A because it was wrong.
My mistake was taking "mental activity" as the same as mental maturity. This question was too easy to get wrong. Quite disappointing.
This one is confusing if you think too much, hence why I think the best way to approach Point At Issue is to just simplify things as much as you can.
For this question, I simply looked at what they would be disagreeing on, How I see it is that "Teaching children chess" is all that matters, with the rest of the sentence just being context. However, it's tricky because I feel that you can easily say another answer
I was overthinking this question but on my second read I realized Sklar says "my objection to teaching chess" which shows us what they are disagreeing about.
Even though Skylar never talked about "teaching" in retrospect, it's still acceptable to say that it's something they disagree on? It just threw me off because I thought both of them mentioned mental maturity/activity so it was a disagreement on that part.
this is definitely a "don't think to hard" question!
Thinking too hard about this question type.
Would it be a good strategy to see what one talks about and the other doesn't and eliminate the ACs? I am having difficulty with coming up with what is inferred.
Am I wrong to consider a PAI disagree question as one that seeks the conclusion of one author and the contradicting conclusion of the other author?
I am confused on how Sklar's objection means that he/she means chess shouldn't be taught. He/she doesn't explicitly say, "I object to chess being taught." Sklar just points out one of the reasons why it potentially shouldn't be taught. It's like me saying, "My one objection with teaching children to play basketball is that the children could be studying instead of playing basketball." This does not entail the claim that basketball shouldn't be taught altogether, but instead an issue with teaching children to play basketball. Perhaps I think that children should focus on their studies more than basketball, but it doesn't mean that I altogether reject the teaching of basketball.
Let me know if you can help clear this confusion. Thank you
Could we take it a step further and say that Sklar believes discouragement of carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness has such a societal value? Or would that be taking it too far?
If Sklar says that it diverts mental activity from useful things to useless things, doesn't that imply that it hinders mental maturity?
I got this in under 20 seconds just based on "my objection to teaching chess" which to me is an immediate signal that this is the disagreement. Is this a bad tactic?