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 ;-;
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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 ?
4
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!
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.
70 comments
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).
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
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 ;-;
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.
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.
i hate how fast you have to be at responding to these questions i got it right but 13 seconds off urgggg
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.
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.
How can you determine whether something is conditional vs causational. I am sort of getting it but not sure.
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?
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?
#help can someone explain more about why Tanner's argument does not contain conditional logic?
got another question right! 😊
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.
#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.
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.
first time getting the question right and submitting before the target time, 11 seconds to spare :). Very much needed small win.
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 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 ?