The population for a given single coral reef should still include some, who are have not left for breeding (Original), relying on POE, is the best way forward
Constructive criticism, giving all the answer options at once allows the reader the opportunity to decide which one they believe is correct rather than J.Y. going through answer options individually, its more efficient to let the reader guess and then see why their answer was supported or why it wasnt
B is also wrong because even if it was focusing on the correct phenomenon (the genetic differences between the different reef populations), it does nothing to explain or resolve this apparent contradiction, it just restates the fact that there is a difference
C is obviously the more correct one, but it's funny - law of small numbers would say it's more likely that there would be substantial variation as a matter of randomness (noise) that mellows out with larger numbers. Causal explanation is key
Alright I have been commenting about how great I have been doing.. got this one wrong. Then had to activate my brain to actually understand why C worked.
Makes sense. Just wish I saw it on first read through.
For answer choice B, I didn't even try to parse the grammar out. I eliminated B because the subject of B, "individual shrimps" is different from the subject presented in the stimulus, "populations of shrimp". Could this technique of eliminating answers based solely on whether the subjects are the same or not lead to some missed answers?
I got the same answer but my thought process is different. I read the stim and found what the phenomena meant to explain then just went through the answers from that. I don't know if that is a good habit or can that lead to development of a bad habit?
Would love to have a chance to try the question before seeing the result or explanation
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
68 comments
why give the suggestion of coming up with your own hypothesis if it generally isn't a good tactic
The population for a given single coral reef should still include some, who are have not left for breeding (Original), relying on POE, is the best way forward
this is the assumption I made before seeing the answer choices, lets gooooo!!!
hardest question by far
So in most cases is there always going to be a Answer choice B that nearly says what the main idea is almost* in many of these types of questions?
Imagine if all Americans went back to their family's ancestral land to find a partner? Would be wild
Am I the only one who is viewing this explanation like O_o?
Pack your bags boys, it's breeding season. We're going home for a family reunion!
Eugenic Shrimp > Inbred Shrimp
Constructive criticism, giving all the answer options at once allows the reader the opportunity to decide which one they believe is correct rather than J.Y. going through answer options individually, its more efficient to let the reader guess and then see why their answer was supported or why it wasnt
So shrimp are xenophobic and will only breed with their cousin #habsshrimp
B is also wrong because even if it was focusing on the correct phenomenon (the genetic differences between the different reef populations), it does nothing to explain or resolve this apparent contradiction, it just restates the fact that there is a difference
sweeeeet home alabama
being interrupted with thoughts about shrimp sex while trying to focus on the question is diabolical. it's all diabolical.
C is obviously the more correct one, but it's funny - law of small numbers would say it's more likely that there would be substantial variation as a matter of randomness (noise) that mellows out with larger numbers. Causal explanation is key
"Correct Answer Choice (C) Before breeding, shrimp of the species examined migrate back to the coral reef at which they were hatched.
Now that’s what I’m fucking talking about."
These are some cousin Fking Shrimp. Must be from Alabama
Alright I have been commenting about how great I have been doing.. got this one wrong. Then had to activate my brain to actually understand why C worked.
Makes sense. Just wish I saw it on first read through.
"These shrimp are prudes!" Sounds like a 7sage T-shirt design to me. Where's the link to your merch??
For answer choice B, I didn't even try to parse the grammar out. I eliminated B because the subject of B, "individual shrimps" is different from the subject presented in the stimulus, "populations of shrimp". Could this technique of eliminating answers based solely on whether the subjects are the same or not lead to some missed answers?
Shrimps having sex with their cousins is wild (I'm from Alabama)
The secret captions are hilarious
Someone send this man a cat
I got the same answer but my thought process is different. I read the stim and found what the phenomena meant to explain then just went through the answers from that. I don't know if that is a good habit or can that lead to development of a bad habit?
Would love to have a chance to try the question before seeing the result or explanation