If the answer choice E was worded "... in the fossilization of sharks' teeth are more common" instead of as common, then would E help resolve the paradox more than answer choice A?
@LSAT1011 I believe it's something we just assume using real world knowledge that an expert in the field or topic would otherwise not make. It's a common trap for the questions.
@LSAT1011 It is when you see two or more facts in a stimulus and assume something that isn’t stated. For example: “Conan is the best detective, yet his clearance rate is below average.” These two statements may seem confusing at first. How can Conan be the best detective if his clearance rate is low? This confusion comes from operating under a naive assumption—that if Conan is the best detective, his clearance rate must also be the highest. That assumption is what creates the apparent contradiction in your mind. The correct answer resolves this by breaking that assumption: “Conan gets the hardest cases.” Now it makes sense why Conan could have a below-average clearance rate. Hope that helps.
@Mullinsc22 That's what makes this type of question different from the ones discussed earlier in the module! In RRE questions (among other types), we have to take the answer choices as true. This question stem even plainly states 'if true', as in if the following answer choices are true. Don't think about why A is true, but how it fits into the stimulus.
@Mullinsc22 You can use outside information for RRE questions! They are different from the previous modules. Just make sure the answer choice explains the casual relationships in the stimulus.
I'm not really following the whole naive assumption thing. For me, it makes more sense to find an answer choice that is the best hypothesis for the facts. Can someone better explain how assumptions come into play?
Hmm, I feel like I am thinking on these wrong. I got it right, but I think it is mostly just because I knew the answer. What concerns me is that I find C a bit convincing, because my brain says "If we trust the answers to be true, then that means the Stimulus can be incorrect then?" So I keep trying to critique the stim and break down what it is missing. So I feel like on harder questions, this is gonna bite me. Hopefully these lessons will help me to better understand what to do instead of trying to pick at a flaw in the stimulus cause I just think that right now, my mindset is struggling to identify these correctly.
@JohnBlessing you can trust the answer choices to be true, while the stimulus is also true. In RRE questions, the stimulus is true. The answer choices are also true even if they use outside knowledge, you just have to choose the AC that explains the casual relationship happening in the stimulus.
Science has always been my weakest subject in school, the analytics have told me I do the worst on these type of questions, I may just skip these lol I cant understand the stimulus, the choices, or the explanations.
These explanations are cool but after all these weeks I am starting to realize that the presenter goes on far too many tangents. I got the correct answer, and I am able to explain why the other answers are wrong, but this guy just starts to confuse my reasoning with all of his 100 other reasonings on why the answer is right or wrong. Stop it
@areejkhan177 These questions give you a set of statements that are seemingly contradictory, or don't add up fully on their own. In this case, shark tooth fossils are super common among vertebrate fossils, but shark skeletons are rare compared to other vertebrate fossils. This is basically asking you to pick the answer choice that explains how/why shark teeth can be so common, while their skeletons are rare compared to other vertebrates.
Answer choice A explains this phenomenon because it states that shark skeletons are made of cartilage and not bone, unlike other vertebrates. It also says the cartilage does not fossilize as well compared to teeth and bones. This explains why shark teeth are common and shark skeletons are rare amongst vertebrate fossils.
When you're on hunt mode for the answer, how much do you still read the other answers? Hunt mode is supposed to save time, but I still check everything else to be safe and am worried this takes just as much time as POE
@faithliberatore951 Personally, it depends on the confidence of my prediction. If I'm certain of my prediction, then I just skim. If I'm 50/50 I read the other choices, just to make sure I'm not missing something. I think it's best practice for accuracy to at least read the other answer choices, unless you're really cramped on time. It shouldn't take too long to read the other answers. I read all the answers for this one and finished within the target time. If I was super cramped on time, I probably would have just quickly skimmed after reading A, cause it was obviously correct.
I locked in A without reading the other answer options because it lined up with what I expected to see in the correct answer. Is this ever reasonable to do on the actual test, or is it always better to read all answers?
I did the same, but it's always good practice to lightly ready over the other answer choices just in case, if anything, to affirm that the one you picked is correct (especially if you are still in the learning phase)!
I think another reason that A is correct over the answer that states that sharks today lose many sets of teeth in their lifetime is that it resolves another phenomenon that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned in the video--that shark skeletons are made up of cartilage compared to the bones of the vertebrate skeleton, which they state are more durable by stating that they're made out of bone which they've established to be durable.
What's helping me with these questions is asking "Why?"
Why are there more shark teeth found than skeletons? I apply that question to each of the answers and whichever one satisfies both parts of the question is the right one.
While I always appreciate the detailed breakdowns of why wrong answers are wrong, and the delving into conditional and causal reasoning, grammar parsing, and unpacking the other intricacies of the syntax, I wonder if it can be unhelpful sometimes. I feel that, before even unpacking the answers many can be eliminated just with a surface level analysis spurred on by the question: "Does the stimulus even mention this?"
LSAT writers take advantage of our instinct to supplement the little (often confusing) information contained within the question stimulus, with our own background knowledge and assumptions (though this CAN be helpful.. for example if you already knew that sharks have a skeleton composed of cartilage and not bone.) Though, more often than not it's actually terribly unhelpful.
What I find most helpful when reading the question stimulus if to FORGET all other background information, and remind myself that really the only information needed to correctly answer the question is contained within it, and then move forward from there.
I think it is often helpful to think about "Does the stimulus every mention this" in certain circumstances. However, some answers for some question types require you to connect dots that aren't directly there in the stimulus, and so if one comes across a stimulus that is confusing, one might knock out possibly correct answers based on the fact that it is not mentioned directly.
This is obviously damaging in that case, which is why I think JY makes sure to really explain the logic behind ruling out wrong answers, to get in the habit of understanding how to process wrong and right answers beyond simply dismissing it because it is not mentioned. I don't think he expects everyone to always use the same process of breaking down the answer options, but uses this method of explanation as a worst case scenario, ensuring that you are prepared with this tool if ever confused.
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.
99 comments
Damn I should have reread the stim. I see why it's A now.
I got it right! I was kind of confused on what cartilage is in terms of fossilization
If the answer choice E was worded "... in the fossilization of sharks' teeth are more common" instead of as common, then would E help resolve the paradox more than answer choice A?
I picked B so confidently LOL. Still don't fully understand how A is correct, but I'll keep practicing loll
@BriannaWells you and me are the same boat. If you start understanding these types of questions, let me know!
wait I don't understand this at all LOL
Can someone explain the concept of a naive assumption
@LSAT1011 I believe it's something we just assume using real world knowledge that an expert in the field or topic would otherwise not make. It's a common trap for the questions.
@LSAT1011 It is when you see two or more facts in a stimulus and assume something that isn’t stated. For example: “Conan is the best detective, yet his clearance rate is below average.” These two statements may seem confusing at first. How can Conan be the best detective if his clearance rate is low? This confusion comes from operating under a naive assumption—that if Conan is the best detective, his clearance rate must also be the highest. That assumption is what creates the apparent contradiction in your mind. The correct answer resolves this by breaking that assumption: “Conan gets the hardest cases.” Now it makes sense why Conan could have a below-average clearance rate. Hope that helps.
But I feel that A is taking outside information for the answer. How do we know that? It does not really explain it
@Mullinsc22 That's what makes this type of question different from the ones discussed earlier in the module! In RRE questions (among other types), we have to take the answer choices as true. This question stem even plainly states 'if true', as in if the following answer choices are true. Don't think about why A is true, but how it fits into the stimulus.
@Mullinsc22 Same! I thought the EXACT SAMEE WAY.
@Mullinsc22 You can use outside information for RRE questions! They are different from the previous modules. Just make sure the answer choice explains the casual relationships in the stimulus.
i love sharks
I got this one right, but once again I am like almost 5 minutes over the expected time.,
I'm not really following the whole naive assumption thing. For me, it makes more sense to find an answer choice that is the best hypothesis for the facts. Can someone better explain how assumptions come into play?
Hmm, I feel like I am thinking on these wrong. I got it right, but I think it is mostly just because I knew the answer. What concerns me is that I find C a bit convincing, because my brain says "If we trust the answers to be true, then that means the Stimulus can be incorrect then?" So I keep trying to critique the stim and break down what it is missing. So I feel like on harder questions, this is gonna bite me. Hopefully these lessons will help me to better understand what to do instead of trying to pick at a flaw in the stimulus cause I just think that right now, my mindset is struggling to identify these correctly.
@JohnBlessing you can trust the answer choices to be true, while the stimulus is also true. In RRE questions, the stimulus is true. The answer choices are also true even if they use outside knowledge, you just have to choose the AC that explains the casual relationship happening in the stimulus.
Science has always been my weakest subject in school, the analytics have told me I do the worst on these type of questions, I may just skip these lol I cant understand the stimulus, the choices, or the explanations.
@aleiapierre123 I feel this man
I got the answer correct but for some reason I always go to the other answers and try to find reason for them being wrong and increase my time
These explanations are cool but after all these weeks I am starting to realize that the presenter goes on far too many tangents. I got the correct answer, and I am able to explain why the other answers are wrong, but this guy just starts to confuse my reasoning with all of his 100 other reasonings on why the answer is right or wrong. Stop it
@StevenNoPH Agreed. Too much information is also repeated, causing the videos to be much longer than they need to be.
the people demand more shark questions kevin...
i fucking love sharks
@paulding77 fuck yeah
Sharks are my special interest.
@KennyB sharks are so cool :D
these are sooo much more intuitive to me than that formal logic mess
i genuinely don't get these. like these make negative sense.
@areejkhan177 These questions give you a set of statements that are seemingly contradictory, or don't add up fully on their own. In this case, shark tooth fossils are super common among vertebrate fossils, but shark skeletons are rare compared to other vertebrate fossils. This is basically asking you to pick the answer choice that explains how/why shark teeth can be so common, while their skeletons are rare compared to other vertebrates.
Answer choice A explains this phenomenon because it states that shark skeletons are made of cartilage and not bone, unlike other vertebrates. It also says the cartilage does not fossilize as well compared to teeth and bones. This explains why shark teeth are common and shark skeletons are rare amongst vertebrate fossils.
Hope this helps!
When you're on hunt mode for the answer, how much do you still read the other answers? Hunt mode is supposed to save time, but I still check everything else to be safe and am worried this takes just as much time as POE
I was wondering this too... I found the answer within 20 seconds but spent another 30 reviewing
@faithliberatore951 Personally, it depends on the confidence of my prediction. If I'm certain of my prediction, then I just skim. If I'm 50/50 I read the other choices, just to make sure I'm not missing something. I think it's best practice for accuracy to at least read the other answer choices, unless you're really cramped on time. It shouldn't take too long to read the other answers. I read all the answers for this one and finished within the target time. If I was super cramped on time, I probably would have just quickly skimmed after reading A, cause it was obviously correct.
I locked in A without reading the other answer options because it lined up with what I expected to see in the correct answer. Is this ever reasonable to do on the actual test, or is it always better to read all answers?
I did the same, but it's always good practice to lightly ready over the other answer choices just in case, if anything, to affirm that the one you picked is correct (especially if you are still in the learning phase)!
Did anyone else choose E? I was able to narrow it down to A and E, but ultimately chose E. I see why it is wrong now and why A would be right.
.
I think another reason that A is correct over the answer that states that sharks today lose many sets of teeth in their lifetime is that it resolves another phenomenon that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned in the video--that shark skeletons are made up of cartilage compared to the bones of the vertebrate skeleton, which they state are more durable by stating that they're made out of bone which they've established to be durable.
What's helping me with these questions is asking "Why?"
Why are there more shark teeth found than skeletons? I apply that question to each of the answers and whichever one satisfies both parts of the question is the right one.
While I always appreciate the detailed breakdowns of why wrong answers are wrong, and the delving into conditional and causal reasoning, grammar parsing, and unpacking the other intricacies of the syntax, I wonder if it can be unhelpful sometimes. I feel that, before even unpacking the answers many can be eliminated just with a surface level analysis spurred on by the question: "Does the stimulus even mention this?"
LSAT writers take advantage of our instinct to supplement the little (often confusing) information contained within the question stimulus, with our own background knowledge and assumptions (though this CAN be helpful.. for example if you already knew that sharks have a skeleton composed of cartilage and not bone.) Though, more often than not it's actually terribly unhelpful.
What I find most helpful when reading the question stimulus if to FORGET all other background information, and remind myself that really the only information needed to correctly answer the question is contained within it, and then move forward from there.
I think it is often helpful to think about "Does the stimulus every mention this" in certain circumstances. However, some answers for some question types require you to connect dots that aren't directly there in the stimulus, and so if one comes across a stimulus that is confusing, one might knock out possibly correct answers based on the fact that it is not mentioned directly.
This is obviously damaging in that case, which is why I think JY makes sure to really explain the logic behind ruling out wrong answers, to get in the habit of understanding how to process wrong and right answers beyond simply dismissing it because it is not mentioned. I don't think he expects everyone to always use the same process of breaking down the answer options, but uses this method of explanation as a worst case scenario, ensuring that you are prepared with this tool if ever confused.