I have a random thought...so that means if one of the answer choices goes in favor of one the stimulus and against of another it is correct? Then, if the answer choices do not offer any context related to one of the stimulus it is incorrect?
Ping's analysis of answer choice A makes a common scoping error. He see's an argument about elections and thinks 'presidential elections'. The domain of the argument is all elections, precisely including those without debates, and likely many where debates might occur but be sparsely attended and not well covered. Across that domain, it is certainly not self-evident that skill in something that doesn't even occur (or occurs in front of only a handful of people) would make one more likely to win an election. It's correct that it's not the point of disagreement, of course, as neither passage discusses the likelihood of winning. They just discuss the utility of the debate, if it happens, for the people that watch it. This is not a nitpicking comment. It's here to remind people to watch out for this common error. Don't assume an argument about a given topic (here, political elections) is scoped to the most salient example of that topic in your memory (US presidential elections).
Yo can someone lmk how to use the pen on the screen? I mean I'll probably figure it out but assuming I can't because I'm big dumb can someone help me. Plz ;-;
@JackFoley There isn't a way to do it through the program since they want it to be closer to the real LSAT but there are extensions on the chrome store that let you annotate on your screen!
If I go hunting for the answer and find the AC I will choose, is it still worth reading the other ACs under timed pressure? I got this question right but still read the other ACs to be sure even though I was 99.9% certain my answer was correct.
@ARo I don't think it's worth it if you're 100% confident in your answer. The other answers will just slow you down and can shake your confidence. If you go hunting, grab your prey when you can.
One thing I noticed: the stimulus is framed as a causal relationship between two relatas. Knowing that allowed me to eliminate choices that indicates a correlational rather than a causal relationship between two.
13 secs off is great! Just keep drilling, analyzing in blind review, and reviewing the foundations and you will start to see patterns that allow you to get 10 or 20 secs off your time.
Got it incorrect trying to hurry and reach the suggested time. But when I went back for blind review, I got it correct. More suggestive that I understand how to get to the right answer, I just take too long. Because of course.
@tswalker83 Reading the question stem first is really the key for these I think, in terms of time. By the time you're done reading the first author, you should likely be able to infer what the second author will disagree with, allowing you to read the second author with the focus of understanding the specific point theyre disagreeing with. When you finish the second author, you should be able to put in your own words what they disagree with and then just hunt for the answer that matches.
Will the right answer always explicitly include the same subject in both statements? For example, "voters" was mentioned by both Tanner and Saldana giving us a nice indicator here.
To be 100% honest. I'm even using the support spectrum to help find the answers. I just read the stimulus, determine the key disagreement, and search the answer via the elimination method. Or find the right answer and stick to it. Should I be trying to use the support spectrum more?
In my opinion, the support spectrum can be applied when you're stuck between 2 answers. I think applying the entire support spectrum to every question will take too much time and not be efficient.
During blind review, I apply the support spectrum to confirm that my reasoning was sound and to reinforce my intuition.
Saldana said political debates always benefit the better candidate, so why wouldn't answer choice A be supported by her? How does it disregard other campaign related things?
Because the question is asking what they disagree over. Tanner did not say anything about their skills, try to think of it like this
Tanner= Voters are able to chose a candidate --> if they watch candidates seriously
Saldana= Voters are NOT able to choose a candidate --> because cadidates with better skills win
So the main argument it is talking about is if watching the debate helps the voter choose a candidate which is Answer B. Its not about the reasoning why they will or will not be able to choose the candidate.
Hope this helps! I am also having a hard time with some questions
I just wanted to say I got this one right. That is right, I am a certified genius.
Doing the scale/graph seems to not really help me. More times than not I get it wrong via that method. What has worked for me is to do the entire process like in the video, but do not write anything down. Just merely mentally noted whether Person A, or Person B even remotely said it, or claimed it.
Okay, I've been doing the same thing as you and thought I was going crazy because the scale/graph was just messing with me. I've been getting every question right just by mentally noting.
Is this a good way to approach these questions? My tactic is to first read the first person's argument, then go directly to the answer choices to check if they are (1) mentioned in the argument or (2) oppose or agree with it. After that, I read the second argument before finalizing my answer.
I strongly think you should read both arguments first and then tackle the answer choices because as mentioned earlier, the point at issue may be below the surface and could require you to derive an inference from the second person's statements in the context of the first person's statements.
The answer choices are not your friend either and may further confuse you or warp your understanding of the actual point at issue.
Correct me if im wrong, but my approach to this question and a lot of PAI questions is if the AC doesn't include/reference the premises, you should disregard them. For example in this question, both Tanner and Saldana both reference "voters," so I went hunting for an AC that referenced that. Am I on the right track, kinda? I know this technique should not be implemented for every question, but it definitely helped me here.
This is my method too. For example, Tanner never mentioned anything about debating skills, rather that if candidates simply make the choice to debate, that voters can judge if they're more qualified. Their skills in debating has nothing to do with this judgment of voters (maybe it's because voters uncover how smart they are, or they like their personality, or their confidence, or anything else.) This way, it was easy to cross out most of the incorrect answers.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
78 comments
Main conclusion lessons are really coming in clutch rn.
4/4 lets gooo I needed this
LETS GO!!!! ANOTHER W
I have a random thought...so that means if one of the answer choices goes in favor of one the stimulus and against of another it is correct? Then, if the answer choices do not offer any context related to one of the stimulus it is incorrect?
@EdithM
I was thinking this too, but am too scared to test that 😅. I'd rather just read both to be safe.
Ping's analysis of answer choice A makes a common scoping error. He see's an argument about elections and thinks 'presidential elections'. The domain of the argument is all elections, precisely including those without debates, and likely many where debates might occur but be sparsely attended and not well covered. Across that domain, it is certainly not self-evident that skill in something that doesn't even occur (or occurs in front of only a handful of people) would make one more likely to win an election. It's correct that it's not the point of disagreement, of course, as neither passage discusses the likelihood of winning. They just discuss the utility of the debate, if it happens, for the people that watch it. This is not a nitpicking comment. It's here to remind people to watch out for this common error. Don't assume an argument about a given topic (here, political elections) is scoped to the most salient example of that topic in your memory (US presidential elections).
I've noticed that I am stronger in answering these questions and MC questions compared to MSS questions. Lol I need to go over MSS questions more
@aidamaeee04 Same!
@jrm98 I'm glad I'm not alone on this!
@aidamaeee04 we are in the same boat.
42 seconds babyyy
Yo can someone lmk how to use the pen on the screen? I mean I'll probably figure it out but assuming I can't because I'm big dumb can someone help me. Plz ;-;
@JackFoley you can't
@JackFoley There isn't a way to do it through the program since they want it to be closer to the real LSAT but there are extensions on the chrome store that let you annotate on your screen!
If I go hunting for the answer and find the AC I will choose, is it still worth reading the other ACs under timed pressure? I got this question right but still read the other ACs to be sure even though I was 99.9% certain my answer was correct.
@ARo I don't think it's worth it if you're 100% confident in your answer. The other answers will just slow you down and can shake your confidence. If you go hunting, grab your prey when you can.
second-guessing and switching to an incorrect answer in BR pains my soul
One thing I noticed: the stimulus is framed as a causal relationship between two relatas. Knowing that allowed me to eliminate choices that indicates a correlational rather than a causal relationship between two.
Love these questions. I've realized this question type is my strength, along with MSS.
Same, although I'm doing better on these questions than on the MSS ones.
i hate how fast you have to be at responding to these questions i got it right but 13 seconds off urgggg
13 secs off is great! Just keep drilling, analyzing in blind review, and reviewing the foundations and you will start to see patterns that allow you to get 10 or 20 secs off your time.
Thanks Gordy!! :,)
Got it incorrect trying to hurry and reach the suggested time. But when I went back for blind review, I got it correct. More suggestive that I understand how to get to the right answer, I just take too long. Because of course.
@tswalker83 Reading the question stem first is really the key for these I think, in terms of time. By the time you're done reading the first author, you should likely be able to infer what the second author will disagree with, allowing you to read the second author with the focus of understanding the specific point theyre disagreeing with. When you finish the second author, you should be able to put in your own words what they disagree with and then just hunt for the answer that matches.
I got it correct but 12 seconds off ugh
Will the right answer always explicitly include the same subject in both statements? For example, "voters" was mentioned by both Tanner and Saldana giving us a nice indicator here.
I'd say yes (I could be wrong).
My two cents: it's important to identify the subject, premise, and conclusion.
Subject is the most important to identify because you know what the two arguments are talking about.
How can you determine whether something is conditional vs causational. I am sort of getting it but not sure.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/ksqjl1/causation_vs_conditional/
To be 100% honest. I'm even using the support spectrum to help find the answers. I just read the stimulus, determine the key disagreement, and search the answer via the elimination method. Or find the right answer and stick to it. Should I be trying to use the support spectrum more?
In my opinion, the support spectrum can be applied when you're stuck between 2 answers. I think applying the entire support spectrum to every question will take too much time and not be efficient.
During blind review, I apply the support spectrum to confirm that my reasoning was sound and to reinforce my intuition.
Saldana said political debates always benefit the better candidate, so why wouldn't answer choice A be supported by her? How does it disregard other campaign related things?
You're right, A is supported by her, however winning is not the main point of the conversation and also Tanner has no opinion on this.
Because the question is asking what they disagree over. Tanner did not say anything about their skills, try to think of it like this
Tanner= Voters are able to chose a candidate --> if they watch candidates seriously
Saldana= Voters are NOT able to choose a candidate --> because cadidates with better skills win
So the main argument it is talking about is if watching the debate helps the voter choose a candidate which is Answer B. Its not about the reasoning why they will or will not be able to choose the candidate.
Hope this helps! I am also having a hard time with some questions
#help can someone explain more about why Tanner's argument does not contain conditional logic?
got another question right! 😊
real
I just wanted to say I got this one right. That is right, I am a certified genius.
Doing the scale/graph seems to not really help me. More times than not I get it wrong via that method. What has worked for me is to do the entire process like in the video, but do not write anything down. Just merely mentally noted whether Person A, or Person B even remotely said it, or claimed it.
Okay, I've been doing the same thing as you and thought I was going crazy because the scale/graph was just messing with me. I've been getting every question right just by mentally noting.
#help
Is this a good way to approach these questions? My tactic is to first read the first person's argument, then go directly to the answer choices to check if they are (1) mentioned in the argument or (2) oppose or agree with it. After that, I read the second argument before finalizing my answer.
hi,
I strongly think you should read both arguments first and then tackle the answer choices because as mentioned earlier, the point at issue may be below the surface and could require you to derive an inference from the second person's statements in the context of the first person's statements.
The answer choices are not your friend either and may further confuse you or warp your understanding of the actual point at issue.
Correct me if im wrong, but my approach to this question and a lot of PAI questions is if the AC doesn't include/reference the premises, you should disregard them. For example in this question, both Tanner and Saldana both reference "voters," so I went hunting for an AC that referenced that. Am I on the right track, kinda? I know this technique should not be implemented for every question, but it definitely helped me here.
This is my method too. For example, Tanner never mentioned anything about debating skills, rather that if candidates simply make the choice to debate, that voters can judge if they're more qualified. Their skills in debating has nothing to do with this judgment of voters (maybe it's because voters uncover how smart they are, or they like their personality, or their confidence, or anything else.) This way, it was easy to cross out most of the incorrect answers.
I am also part of this club
first time getting the question right and submitting before the target time, 11 seconds to spare :). Very much needed small win.