@Chanda.m I totally agree, it seems like a better structure to answering these question types is identifying the main point in both speakers opinion and seeing how they contrast.
@danielbriggs18151 They are a lot easier since we learned in earlier lessons to find the MC. Since we've been practicing that skill so consistently it's becoming intuitive to parse what the conclusion of an argument or stimulus may be!
"You cannot have a disagreement when one person takes no position on an issue"-- Probably the most helpful thing he said in this video for me. That's how I eliminated answer choices so quickly.
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.
I felt like J.Y. made some assumptions in this tutorial, especially getting rid of answer choices C and D. I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but based off our lessons of always being anchored in the stimulus I think these videos could use some improvement.
For C, I agree with J.Y. that Tanner doesn't discuss debating skills. However, I believe he takes quite a leap in saying not only that Saldana supports this but agrees with this. C says: "Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office", and Saldana doesn't say anything about the use of debating skills while in office. Maybe she agrees because she thinks its not useful after the initial campaign. Maybe she disagrees because whoever is elected will have to debate for reelection. I really disagree with J.Y. that we can say anything about Saldana's view other than she doesn't mention it and it is therefore a consistent claim with her argument.
D is not so bad, but I still feel there are assumptions. D says "The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running". J.Y. says that Tanner doesn't speak about debating skills, which again I agree with. But he says that Saldana disagrees, which assumes that she thinks having good debating skills means you're less qualified, which she doesn't say. Saldana doesn't say that having good debating skills means you're less qualified, she simply says that good debating skills doesn't mean you are qualified. In this way she is consistent with the claim.
Once again, I'm no expert. These are just my personal thoughts. If you at 7sage or other 7sage customers agree, maybe their could be a change for the better. If you disagree, I can respect that and would like to know why, outside of what the video says. #help#feedback
I think you may be on to something. You articulated it well, I just felt that some assumptions were being made when he quickly threw C and D pretty far onto opposite ends of the spectrum.
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.
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 think a lot of LC can distract us from thinking too hard on some questions that sometimes require minimal thinking. for this one, I spent a little more time than usual but I had to just rephrase what each person was saying, and look for key word(s) that would place both arguments/statements into the answer choices. I looked for 'Voters', because that was the one thing they both had a disagreement on.
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.
I have genuinely got like the last 9 out of 10 questions that 7sage cirriculum has provided correct and im loving it, I feel a lot better and more comfortabe with LR now and it has only been about 2 weeks
I got a B on the first try but in BR I decided to go with E because I could not understand the statement at first and was like what if this is the answer without any logical thinking lol. Not a good way to do BR anyway but was being really lazy there in taking the time to understand each AC.
I notice that even though I get the answer right it's not usually for the same reasoning as what's listed. For example I didn't even consider the word "if" in answer B. Anyone else have this issue ?
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?
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.
Should I be reading all the answer choices when I am certain on the right answer? For example if I read A and it's the perfect answer choice. I struggle with timing too, so it would save me a lot of time not to read over each answer.
I would quickly read all AC. Once in a blue moon, a "better" answer choice will pop out at me and I am grateful to have read them all vs. going with my initial gut.
94 comments
Seeing this after the Trump and Biden debate LOL
yeah that disaster didnt help me decide at all, just made me not want to vote for either even more lol
Main conclusion lessons are really coming in clutch rn.
@Chanda.m I totally agree, it seems like a better structure to answering these question types is identifying the main point in both speakers opinion and seeing how they contrast.
@Chanda.m absolutely
first time getting the question right and submitting before the target time, 11 seconds to spare :). Very much needed small win.
I feel as if these question types seem a lot more intuitive to me.
@danielbriggs18151 They are a lot easier since we learned in earlier lessons to find the MC. Since we've been practicing that skill so consistently it's becoming intuitive to parse what the conclusion of an argument or stimulus may be!
"You cannot have a disagreement when one person takes no position on an issue"-- Probably the most helpful thing he said in this video for me. That's how I eliminated answer choices so quickly.
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'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.
second-guessing and switching to an incorrect answer in BR pains my soul
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.
got another question right! 😊
real
I felt like J.Y. made some assumptions in this tutorial, especially getting rid of answer choices C and D. I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but based off our lessons of always being anchored in the stimulus I think these videos could use some improvement.
For C, I agree with J.Y. that Tanner doesn't discuss debating skills. However, I believe he takes quite a leap in saying not only that Saldana supports this but agrees with this. C says: "Debating skills are of little use to politicians in doing their jobs once they are elected to office", and Saldana doesn't say anything about the use of debating skills while in office. Maybe she agrees because she thinks its not useful after the initial campaign. Maybe she disagrees because whoever is elected will have to debate for reelection. I really disagree with J.Y. that we can say anything about Saldana's view other than she doesn't mention it and it is therefore a consistent claim with her argument.
D is not so bad, but I still feel there are assumptions. D says "The candidates with the best debating skills are the ones who are most qualified for the political offices for which they are running". J.Y. says that Tanner doesn't speak about debating skills, which again I agree with. But he says that Saldana disagrees, which assumes that she thinks having good debating skills means you're less qualified, which she doesn't say. Saldana doesn't say that having good debating skills means you're less qualified, she simply says that good debating skills doesn't mean you are qualified. In this way she is consistent with the claim.
Once again, I'm no expert. These are just my personal thoughts. If you at 7sage or other 7sage customers agree, maybe their could be a change for the better. If you disagree, I can respect that and would like to know why, outside of what the video says. #help#feedback
You're able to make reasonable assumptions.
I think you may be on to something. You articulated it well, I just felt that some assumptions were being made when he quickly threw C and D pretty far onto opposite ends of the spectrum.
agreed with OP, his reasonings surprised me
OMG, I'm featured in a question!
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!! :,)
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
ugh
dont be discouraged!
i think a lot of LC can distract us from thinking too hard on some questions that sometimes require minimal thinking. for this one, I spent a little more time than usual but I had to just rephrase what each person was saying, and look for key word(s) that would place both arguments/statements into the answer choices. I looked for 'Voters', because that was the one thing they both had a disagreement on.
also, like the name. we will get 170+!!!
it took me a lot longer than i wanted since i second-guessed myself but my intuition was right. yay!
I AM FINALLY SCOPING OUT THE CORRECT ANSWER UNDER TIME.. Granted these are easier but FINALLY
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.
4/4 lets gooo I needed this
I have genuinely got like the last 9 out of 10 questions that 7sage cirriculum has provided correct and im loving it, I feel a lot better and more comfortabe with LR now and it has only been about 2 weeks
I got a B on the first try but in BR I decided to go with E because I could not understand the statement at first and was like what if this is the answer without any logical thinking lol. Not a good way to do BR anyway but was being really lazy there in taking the time to understand each AC.
I notice that even though I get the answer right it's not usually for the same reasoning as what's listed. For example I didn't even consider the word "if" in answer B. Anyone else have this issue ?
i think as long as u can follow your reasoning for choosing the right answer and it logically makes sense, then you should be fine
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.
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.
Should I be reading all the answer choices when I am certain on the right answer? For example if I read A and it's the perfect answer choice. I struggle with timing too, so it would save me a lot of time not to read over each answer.
I would quickly read all AC. Once in a blue moon, a "better" answer choice will pop out at me and I am grateful to have read them all vs. going with my initial gut.