Subscription pricing
Are we allowed to ask for explanations for specific questions on the June 2019 LSAT? I'm working through them now and am stumped on one LR question.
Thanks a ton!
0
Are we allowed to ask for explanations for specific questions on the June 2019 LSAT? I'm working through them now and am stumped on one LR question.
Thanks a ton!
8 comments
@taschasp823 said:
@billchanheelee221 said:
I left a note in PT87 .LR.2 Sec 3. Q.5 as a note as a question; no one reqplied so here I go with copy and paste : "Hi. In this case, JY's explanation was not adequate for me. This is why:
the Intermediate conclusion (IC), Journalistic standards are lowered.
The Main conclusion (MC): Consequently, we are increasingly bombarded with inaccurate and trivial information. -- This is JY's explanation.
According to JY (01:40 ish) , MC is supported by IC.
But in this Case, IC is also adequately supported by REAL MC as in IC can be a good final conclusion in non-awkward and persuasive manner that is supported by Real MC.
As in... because we are increasingly bombarded with inaccurate and trivial information (Real MC work as IC); consequence of the information forces compete for one another (paraphrase of one Presmise we have) . Therefore, Jounralistic Standards are Lowered (my question / MC)
The second Scenario (My question-Scenario) also follows well enough to be non-awakard and even though the it is labelled as IC, it can work well as a MC in replacement of real MC.
So I have a difficult time deciding between B and C as the correct answer. "
The word "consequently" pretty clearly denotes some sort of chronological/causal sequence--in other words, "consequently, bla bla happened" translates to: "because of what I've just told you, bla bla happened"
So to give another example, I could say, "the chicken laid an egg. consequently, a new, fertile chicken was born." If you take out the consequently, either could feasibly precede the other. Like, maybe the new, fertile chicken was born, and then the chicken laid an egg. But the word "consequently" tells us that the chicken laid an egg first, and then a new fertile chicken was born (and like, the reasonable interpretation here is that the egg hatched, although I guess technically it could have been a totally different egg).
Hope this helps.
Hi @taschasp823 , thx for your heart and help. But it doesn't do much for me .IN this case, the question I have, involves IC and MC. Which IC can be introduced with consequently as well as MC in actual LSAT, many times occurred prior, Thx anyways
@billchanheelee221 said:
I left a note in PT87 .LR.2 Sec 3. Q.5 as a note as a question; no one reqplied so here I go with copy and paste : "Hi. In this case, JY's explanation was not adequate for me. This is why:
the Intermediate conclusion (IC), Journalistic standards are lowered.
The Main conclusion (MC): Consequently, we are increasingly bombarded with inaccurate and trivial information. -- This is JY's explanation.
According to JY (01:40 ish) , MC is supported by IC.
But in this Case, IC is also adequately supported by REAL MC as in IC can be a good final conclusion in non-awkward and persuasive manner that is supported by Real MC.
As in... because we are increasingly bombarded with inaccurate and trivial information (Real MC work as IC); consequence of the information forces compete for one another (paraphrase of one Presmise we have) . Therefore, Jounralistic Standards are Lowered (my question / MC)
The second Scenario (My question-Scenario) also follows well enough to be non-awakard and even though the it is labelled as IC, it can work well as a MC in replacement of real MC.
So I have a difficult time deciding between B and C as the correct answer. "
The word "consequently" pretty clearly denotes some sort of chronological/causal sequence--in other words, "consequently, bla bla happened" translates to: "because of what I've just told you, bla bla happened"
So to give another example, I could say, "the chicken laid an egg. consequently, a new, fertile chicken was born." If you take out the consequently, either could feasibly precede the other. Like, maybe the new, fertile chicken was born, and then the chicken laid an egg. But the word "consequently" tells us that the chicken laid an egg first, and then a new fertile chicken was born (and like, the reasonable interpretation here is that the egg hatched, although I guess technically it could have been a totally different egg).
Hope this helps.
I
I didn’t know there was a BR call on the June test. But yes... would also be down to create a group!
Are you guys joining the BR call tonight led by @304694 ? I'm just starting to (gulp) review the test on my own, and it's so disheartening. It's like I wasn't even myself. I never, ever miss this many on my PTs. Ugh.
I'm in!
Yes let’s do this!
I wonder if those of us who got the June results could start a small group and begin to BR it all together leading up to the July exam?