I don't know if it's good to do this, but for POE I tell myself "can we know this from the info provided" and if it's not, I eliminate it. It's been working and I'm meeting the time on most (or fairly close).
A) Yes - the stimulus states and follows this
B) No - fish might have not have been able to survive prior regardless - we don't know
C) No - bacteria could be on the ocean floor because of some source other than agricultural runoff - we don't know
D) No - we don't know how much runoff poured out to double the phosphorous - could be .5x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x - we don't know
E) No - we know bacteria eating plankton consumes oxygen - we have no idea from the stimulus if that could be a general rule happening elsewhere
I'm treating the stimulus as the entirety of the information we need and if an answer choice mentions something not in the stimulus, it's out.
@colincy And if the correct answer choice wants you to infer something that is not in the stimulus, you compare with all the answer choices that are from the stimulus?
Idk if this is good method or not but after reading through the stimulus, I go through each answer choice and I'm like "okay and? we don't know that" and I eliminate that way LOL. So far I've gotten every one right but I'm wondering if it's just luck or if i'm actually girlbossing it
I think we can all agree that causation logic MBT questions are 10 times better than the conditional ones we have to diagram. I feel like these questions you can just read them and poe where as the other ones you take forever mapping it out properly
How long does it take you all to map out conditional logic questions (or any questions, for that matter)? I feel like it takes me at least another minute longer than the target time to fully map out the logic. While this method is incredibly helpful in actually identifying the correct answer, it does come at the cost of losing time... anyone else experiencing the same?
Ya I would definitely agree with you that always mapping out conditional logic takes too long for the test, but from previous lessons, I believe JY has stated not to worry about time if you're just going through these lessons and to map it out so that you get the basics down. Then, you can begin to transition to doing it in your head quickly when getting deeper in drills and testing.
I know people say they struggle on time with these type of questions. I think the best thing that helps me on these questions is for each answer, asking myself "Do we know that from the stimulus?". It helps me eliminate at least 3 of the answer choices relatively quickly. Usually if they assume something will happen as a result thats not explicitly stated in the stimulus then you can cross it off. If you aren't sure off the top of your head after reading the stimulus, just skip it and move on to the next answer choice!
Solid advice. That's kind of the approach I take also, I ask myself, "Do I KNOW this based on what I've been told, or am I assuming it?" It really does help eliminate several wrong answers rather quickly.
How do I stop second-guessing myself? I chose A immediately after reading the stimulus, but then I overanalyzed every answer choice and wasted a ton of time. I still ended up picking A, but a question that should’ve taken under a minute ended up taking 2:39. So frustrating.
Reminder that we are allowed scratch paper and pencil during the multiple choice part of the exam! I've found that answering these questions by writing on paper rather than using the highlights in the drills has helped me and more closely simulates the exam. Recommend trying it out :)
the fact that i sat there and read A and B back and forth and still stuck with B.. this test is draining me. study hard people or you'll be still studying for this test two years later lol
Just wanted to write that JY's reasoning for B being wrong is slightly off.
Yes, most is wrong for sure, but "more" would STILL be wrong. You cannot infer anything from a causal relationship about what may have happened in the past. Yes, high phosphorus kills fish. But in the past, with less phosphorus, would more fish have survived? You have no idea.
It could be that half the phosphorus would still kill the fish (a threshold of sorts). Or... it could be that a different thing now rises due to the low phosphorus and this is even more dangerous and kills even more fish.
In causal relationships, the absence of the cause does not imply the lack of the effect!
Eliminate those answers that are speculating immediately!
(another example: drinking more water will cause me to pee more. if I don't drink more water, can I say anything about my pee? no! I could still need to pee more from another reason)
One caveat: if it said "all else being equal, less fish would die" then you can rightly say this is true, since it precludes any other explanation, and so reducing that primary cause implies the following effect will subside.
My thoughts exactly! Like in the previous question, just because we know that doubling phosphorus is a cause of plankton growth, we can't imply that there are no other causes of plankton growth (and therefore no other causes of few fish surviving). Just because the cause is not fulfilled does not mean the effect will not be fulfilled.
How do I become confident in answer questions? I read A first and assumed it was the answer, but then went through every other question before submitting.
Use the Blind Review function. Answer with your intuition, and then go through with the Blind Review to be sure your answer was correct. In the v1 of the Core Curriculum, there's an entire section on how to utilize the Blind Review, I definitely recommend checking it out!
I really respect how 7sage structures the curriculum. These are definetely hard but the stimuli would be so much more difficult if we didn't go over grammar and info parsing strategies.
124 comments
I don't know if it's good to do this, but for POE I tell myself "can we know this from the info provided" and if it's not, I eliminate it. It's been working and I'm meeting the time on most (or fairly close).
A) Yes - the stimulus states and follows this
B) No - fish might have not have been able to survive prior regardless - we don't know
C) No - bacteria could be on the ocean floor because of some source other than agricultural runoff - we don't know
D) No - we don't know how much runoff poured out to double the phosphorous - could be .5x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x - we don't know
E) No - we know bacteria eating plankton consumes oxygen - we have no idea from the stimulus if that could be a general rule happening elsewhere
I'm treating the stimulus as the entirety of the information we need and if an answer choice mentions something not in the stimulus, it's out.
@colincy And if the correct answer choice wants you to infer something that is not in the stimulus, you compare with all the answer choices that are from the stimulus?
@colincy this is the way I eliminate answers as well. I eliminated B quickly because you can't necessarily assume that based on the stim
Idk if this is good method or not but after reading through the stimulus, I go through each answer choice and I'm like "okay and? we don't know that" and I eliminate that way LOL. So far I've gotten every one right but I'm wondering if it's just luck or if i'm actually girlbossing it
honestly.. this is exactly what im doing and its also working LOL
I do this too. I don't see a problem with it so far, at least.
read the loophole, this is essentially (and im watering it down extremely) what it teaches you haha
I think we can all agree that causation logic MBT questions are 10 times better than the conditional ones we have to diagram. I feel like these questions you can just read them and poe where as the other ones you take forever mapping it out properly
How long does it take you all to map out conditional logic questions (or any questions, for that matter)? I feel like it takes me at least another minute longer than the target time to fully map out the logic. While this method is incredibly helpful in actually identifying the correct answer, it does come at the cost of losing time... anyone else experiencing the same?
Lol I disagree...I feel like these are not as clear
Ya I would definitely agree with you that always mapping out conditional logic takes too long for the test, but from previous lessons, I believe JY has stated not to worry about time if you're just going through these lessons and to map it out so that you get the basics down. Then, you can begin to transition to doing it in your head quickly when getting deeper in drills and testing.
I know people say they struggle on time with these type of questions. I think the best thing that helps me on these questions is for each answer, asking myself "Do we know that from the stimulus?". It helps me eliminate at least 3 of the answer choices relatively quickly. Usually if they assume something will happen as a result thats not explicitly stated in the stimulus then you can cross it off. If you aren't sure off the top of your head after reading the stimulus, just skip it and move on to the next answer choice!
Solid advice. That's kind of the approach I take also, I ask myself, "Do I KNOW this based on what I've been told, or am I assuming it?" It really does help eliminate several wrong answers rather quickly.
i am finally getting must be true feels so good!
This was an easy one for my #realenvironmentalsciencegeezers #environmentallaw #unemployablewithoutaJD
@CeciliaBurton1 lol its why I'm going into environmental law
How do I stop second-guessing myself? I chose A immediately after reading the stimulus, but then I overanalyzed every answer choice and wasted a ton of time. I still ended up picking A, but a question that should’ve taken under a minute ended up taking 2:39. So frustrating.
Found this one to be easy 💪🏽(gets the next 2 wrong)
LOL same... can't be too happy
7sage beat me down quite of few times with this section. The last 4 or 5 have been building my confidence back up
bruh I thought A was a trap answer because it was too obvious/basically stated word for word
@ujustgotlittup basically these are "so what you're saying is" and that's what we're trying to figure out
I HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING BUT WHAT HAS REALLY HELPED ME IS FOR THE ANSWERS ASK YOURSELF "HOW DO I KNOW THIS IS TRUE?"
Same but I say “how tf would I know”
The answer choice A seemed to easy and simple so I did not pick it!! I am so upset
me too, I thought it was just reiterating the stimulus.
Second guessed myself and took too long. That answer seemed too simple.
I think I finally understand what answer choices to avoid. Got it right and under the time limit!
@MarieChavis congrats!! I only got +0.05 !!
Reminder that we are allowed scratch paper and pencil during the multiple choice part of the exam! I've found that answering these questions by writing on paper rather than using the highlights in the drills has helped me and more closely simulates the exam. Recommend trying it out :)
Same!
the fact that i sat there and read A and B back and forth and still stuck with B.. this test is draining me. study hard people or you'll be still studying for this test two years later lol
Bamboozled by E squad
@CollinEsquirol We simply do not know if it's inversely or directly proportional.
trying not to overthink. picked A but my mind kept thinking that A was too obvious.
This is a funny question to me bc I wrote a paper on this exact topic and came up with the same conclusion LOL. Felt like I cheated on this question
I got A and it makes sense.
Just wanted to write that JY's reasoning for B being wrong is slightly off.
Yes, most is wrong for sure, but "more" would STILL be wrong. You cannot infer anything from a causal relationship about what may have happened in the past. Yes, high phosphorus kills fish. But in the past, with less phosphorus, would more fish have survived? You have no idea.
It could be that half the phosphorus would still kill the fish (a threshold of sorts). Or... it could be that a different thing now rises due to the low phosphorus and this is even more dangerous and kills even more fish.
In causal relationships, the absence of the cause does not imply the lack of the effect!
Eliminate those answers that are speculating immediately!
(another example: drinking more water will cause me to pee more. if I don't drink more water, can I say anything about my pee? no! I could still need to pee more from another reason)
One caveat: if it said "all else being equal, less fish would die" then you can rightly say this is true, since it precludes any other explanation, and so reducing that primary cause implies the following effect will subside.
My thoughts exactly! Like in the previous question, just because we know that doubling phosphorus is a cause of plankton growth, we can't imply that there are no other causes of plankton growth (and therefore no other causes of few fish surviving). Just because the cause is not fulfilled does not mean the effect will not be fulfilled.
How do I become confident in answer questions? I read A first and assumed it was the answer, but then went through every other question before submitting.
JUST FUCKING DO IT!!! seriously it's a hurdle I'm trying to overcome as well but ya gotta just pull the trigger
same question #help
Use the Blind Review function. Answer with your intuition, and then go through with the Blind Review to be sure your answer was correct. In the v1 of the Core Curriculum, there's an entire section on how to utilize the Blind Review, I definitely recommend checking it out!
Needed to read this. I need to trust my intuition big time. I've been getting a lot of first answers right instantly but second guess it
I'm really starting to understand that slowing down when reading the stimulus is so powerful for realizing how bad the wrong answer choices are.
I really respect how 7sage structures the curriculum. These are definetely hard but the stimuli would be so much more difficult if we didn't go over grammar and info parsing strategies.
Wait does this mean that every single time we see a "properly inferred" question stem, we should expect to see some sort of chain reasoning?
@23houg I believe it is not every time, but it is a common thing that the LSAT does!
boi how is that a 3-star!! I swear some 1 stars are more difficult than this question