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.
I chose D because my explanation to the paradox was my own knowledge that sharks grow several sets of teeth in their lifetime - thus ignoring all the red flags with that answer choice.
idky but thinking about the stimulus as a phenomenon in need of explanation and the ACs as all potential hypotheses has made these questions so much easier for me (': thanks 7sage ur the best
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.
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.
What is the strategy if you happen to know the answer? Before looking at the answers I knew about the cartilage issue so just answered A and moved on. Is that fine? Probably wishful thinking and will never happen on test day though! #help (Added by Admin)
I think that strategy certainly has drawbacks. In these comments, for example, someone else had mentioned they chose D because they knew that sharks shed teeth throughout their lifetimes. D was obviously wrong, but not in terms of their pre-LSAT context. Your knowledge happened to be right, but I wouldn't say that's a strategy for the test.
118 comments
I swear I only got this wrong because I didn't know what cartilage meant. crying in English as the second language
same!!! ;( had to google what cartilage meant. I thought it meant bone so I was confused.
I'm seriously so impressed with anyone doing this test with a different first language!!
i fucking love sharks
@paulding77 fuck yeah
No joke analyzing the questions and answers with JY's voice in my head helps me find the right answer.
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.
I’m cooked
i felt this on a spiritual level.
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
sharkologist lol sounds cool
lol, I love sharks so I unfortunately was able to immediately get this one without actually employing any logical reasoning
I chose D because my explanation to the paradox was my own knowledge that sharks grow several sets of teeth in their lifetime - thus ignoring all the red flags with that answer choice.
almost did the same thing.
these are sooo much more intuitive to me than that formal logic mess
i love sharks
@VanillaCat Same!
@RachelB.P. cute babies
idky but thinking about the stimulus as a phenomenon in need of explanation and the ACs as all potential hypotheses has made these questions so much easier for me (': thanks 7sage ur the best
yes!!! thinking of the stimulus as a phenomenon allows me to go hunting for the best explanation that doesn't require me to make egregious assumptions
Sharks are my special interest.
@KennyB sharks are so cool :D
the people demand more shark questions kevin...
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.
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.
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!
Pretty easy question since I grew up on the coast and know about sharks. If you got it wrong just focus and remember there is no-fin left to lose
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
The grammar on this one is bizarre.
Thankful to my friend who never shuts up about random marine biology facts and for somehow drilling this in my head at some point in my recent memory
You owe your friend a coffee now! lol
What is the strategy if you happen to know the answer? Before looking at the answers I knew about the cartilage issue so just answered A and moved on. Is that fine? Probably wishful thinking and will never happen on test day though! #help (Added by Admin)
I think that strategy certainly has drawbacks. In these comments, for example, someone else had mentioned they chose D because they knew that sharks shed teeth throughout their lifetimes. D was obviously wrong, but not in terms of their pre-LSAT context. Your knowledge happened to be right, but I wouldn't say that's a strategy for the test.
Sure. Whatever saves your time is worthwhile. I got this question right just the way you did.
me too!
This might just be my favorite type of question
my dumb self didn't even see shark SKELETONS, i read it as shark teeth twice
Me too, at first. The test makers knew what they were doing. I found grammar parsing and the Kick It Into the Domain technique useful here.