I realized that it was actually my thought process that's been wrong this whole time. I thought that the answer had to be a claim that was phrased from the first speakers perspective. I now realize that it can also be from the second speakers view. I thought A was right but selected B or E because I thought it referenced the first speakers thoughts more. Glad I learned this now!
Confused on the explanation for B being wrong. I picked A, but thought B could possibly be the correct answer because Tate would disagree, and Wong would agree. Wong thinks democracy makes every country better off, so would she not also think that's the most important part to a country? Maybe I'm missing something
Remember that if two authors are at different points in the spectrum of support, that does not necessarily mean they disagree. For example, if one of them DOES NOT HAVE AN OPINION, and the other one IS AGAINST, that does not mean they disagree. FOR THEM TO DISAGREE, ONE HAS TO BE SITUATED IN THE "IN FAVOR" AND THE OTHER ONE IN THE "AGAINST" Part of the spectrum.
I am having difficulties with this question as there appears to be a contradiction in Wong's statement. Wong claims that all countries are better off as democracies, yet also concedes that a transitional autocratic stage is sometimes required before a country can become democratic. But if autocracy is required at some point in a country’s development, doesn’t that suggest that, in that moment, autocracy is actually the better form of government? Otherwise, why would it be necessary at all?
It seems unreasonable to assume that this “requirement” is externally imposed or arbitrary. The more plausible assumption from the provided text is that autocracy is adopted because, under certain conditions, it is more politically expedient or effective than democracy — even if only temporarily. If that’s the case, then we have a clear counterexample to Wong’s universal claim that democracy is always better for all countries. This would appear to be a direct contradiction.
Furthermore, neither author explicitly frames their argument in terms of an “end state” of governance. The notion that countries are progressing toward some final or ideal form of government is not articulated, but rather assumed — and that assumption reflects a distinctly Western or Whiggish view of history. From alternative theoretical perspectives, governance is neither linear nor teleological; there is no fixed endpoint for political development, only successive periods in which different forms of government dominate before giving way to others. Interpreting Wong’s claim through this “end of history” lens imposes a significant ideological presupposition — one that is not supported by the text and should not be taken for granted.
What confused me about this question was that it was previously stated that we should always treat the stimulus as a convo. The 2nd speaker is always responding to the first. I'm pretty sure in an earlier lesson it was also said that #1 speaker wil agree and and #2 will not in a disagree question stem. I completely understand why is A is the right answer and I even had the inclination to choose it at first, but then i remembered those former rules. Was confused between A and E. Can anyone help explain? #feedback
Okay, I got the question right but I dont believe that I really understand what the question is asking....can someone please explain this to me like I am five years old please? I think the part that is most tripping me up is the "..over the truth.." part
Why do you just ignore Wong's claim that some countries are required to be autocracies during the transitional phrase????? I now get that they are playing on the distinction between better off and required (very small distinction), but you don't even mention it. It would seem highly important to explain in an explanation video.
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 realized that it was actually my thought process that's been wrong this whole time. I thought that the answer had to be a claim that was phrased from the first speakers perspective. I now realize that it can also be from the second speakers view. I thought A was right but selected B or E because I thought it referenced the first speakers thoughts more. Glad I learned this now!
Confused on the explanation for B being wrong. I picked A, but thought B could possibly be the correct answer because Tate would disagree, and Wong would agree. Wong thinks democracy makes every country better off, so would she not also think that's the most important part to a country? Maybe I'm missing something
Trying to do it in my head gave me a headache lol but got it right.
Remember that if two authors are at different points in the spectrum of support, that does not necessarily mean they disagree. For example, if one of them DOES NOT HAVE AN OPINION, and the other one IS AGAINST, that does not mean they disagree. FOR THEM TO DISAGREE, ONE HAS TO BE SITUATED IN THE "IN FAVOR" AND THE OTHER ONE IN THE "AGAINST" Part of the spectrum.
I am having difficulties with this question as there appears to be a contradiction in Wong's statement. Wong claims that all countries are better off as democracies, yet also concedes that a transitional autocratic stage is sometimes required before a country can become democratic. But if autocracy is required at some point in a country’s development, doesn’t that suggest that, in that moment, autocracy is actually the better form of government? Otherwise, why would it be necessary at all?
It seems unreasonable to assume that this “requirement” is externally imposed or arbitrary. The more plausible assumption from the provided text is that autocracy is adopted because, under certain conditions, it is more politically expedient or effective than democracy — even if only temporarily. If that’s the case, then we have a clear counterexample to Wong’s universal claim that democracy is always better for all countries. This would appear to be a direct contradiction.
Furthermore, neither author explicitly frames their argument in terms of an “end state” of governance. The notion that countries are progressing toward some final or ideal form of government is not articulated, but rather assumed — and that assumption reflects a distinctly Western or Whiggish view of history. From alternative theoretical perspectives, governance is neither linear nor teleological; there is no fixed endpoint for political development, only successive periods in which different forms of government dominate before giving way to others. Interpreting Wong’s claim through this “end of history” lens imposes a significant ideological presupposition — one that is not supported by the text and should not be taken for granted.
Can someone refresh my memory on what J.Y. means by ES (left) C(middle) and Cont? (right) on the scale of support?
I am crushing these PAI disagree questions !
What confused me about this question was that it was previously stated that we should always treat the stimulus as a convo. The 2nd speaker is always responding to the first. I'm pretty sure in an earlier lesson it was also said that #1 speaker wil agree and and #2 will not in a disagree question stem. I completely understand why is A is the right answer and I even had the inclination to choose it at first, but then i remembered those former rules. Was confused between A and E. Can anyone help explain? #feedback
wahoo got it right! ✌🏻
This one was pretty easy. They both clearly state something to prove it.
Wong: ALL countries are better as Democratic.
Tate: SOME countries are better as Aristocratic or another way to say NOT Democratic.
Answer: There are SOME countries. Well right there, Wong would disagree.
Chose the answer in like 20 seconds, but it took me like 2 minutes of overthinking to finally move on to the video lol
Okay, I got the question right but I dont believe that I really understand what the question is asking....can someone please explain this to me like I am five years old please? I think the part that is most tripping me up is the "..over the truth.." part
CLAIM 180 LSAT SCORE pls
Is anyone taking pre-tests at this point??
Why do you just ignore Wong's claim that some countries are required to be autocracies during the transitional phrase????? I now get that they are playing on the distinction between better off and required (very small distinction), but you don't even mention it. It would seem highly important to explain in an explanation video.
I will get a 180 if all the questions are like this
Based Tate
This is as about as simple as these questions get. Hoping there are a lot of these on the LR section of the LSAT.
We want to practice the question our self before we start the video. Please put all the answers up.
First