I was looking for an answer choice that gave us a different reason for why tornadoes were occurring more so this just fully broke my brain. :) And it hurt extra seeing the difficulty be so low. :) yippee
I got this one right but I strongly considered D, for a different reason than in the explanation. I took it as kind of the same as E. More property damage because there are more people where tornadoes are popping up. That would mean some tornadoes that previously maybe nobody actually saw, unreported, are now seen and reported. I feel like if E didn't explicitly say basically the same thing as my assumption, D still could have been a valid answer choice. I guess my point is, in my head D is only wrong because there is a better answer choice, bot because it's downright wrong.
I feel like these 'difficulty' ratings have far more to do with where the question landed in the test than the actual difficulty. This did not feel like a 2 difficulty it felt trickier than that because A is the most popular trap answer and when you are crunched on time you are much more likely to just go with your first impression. I would guess that if it was in section 4 question 25 instead of section 1 question 6 a lot more people would be getting it wrong. Still, don't think it would be a four or a five, probably a 3, but all the fours and fives I've seen have been near the end of sections where a good portion of people are probably guessing anyway because they ran out of time.
Does anyone know if they take test order and answer order into account when assigning difficulty or is it just based off the number of people who got it wrong?
In my mind, A is incorrect because it is talking about before 1953 and we are talking about things that have happened since 1953. is this correct to assume?
#feedback#feedback Anyone got any adivice on confidence. First initial time through quickly eliminated all the answers down to E and then was like yeah that correct of course. But then I always tend to second guess myself which in turn made me go back through all the answers when that happens I start justifying the answers more and more and have the potential to choose the wrong one. It seems so hard to trust myself on this test because I have had instances on different questions where I was 100% sure and ended up getting baited into picking the wrong answer??
Oh man the past 2 you trys i got wrong, But i had the right answer as my other option that i just didn't pick, it feels good to know that I understand these at least now, and got this one right pretty easily.
Not sure if this will help anyone out. But before looking at the answers I ask myself, What is it that I need to explain or resolve. I write what I think it is out and then look at the answers.
Any tips on how to stop second guessing yourself? I keep choosing the right answer first and then switching it up to the other more "attractive" answer choice.
Where I went wrong in this question was because I focused on "Yet meteorologists insist that the climatic factors affecting the creation of tornadoes are unchanged." this led my brain into thinking about ways to solve this issue instead of focusing on the discrepancy with the number of tornados.
I have a question about RRE in general: are we to assume that the stimulus is true? That the statements made are correct, and then find the middle ground?
I've seen that basically all answers deal with the middle ground.
I ask because to resolve a discrepancy, I could either prove first person wrong, second person wrong, or find the explanation to bridge the two.
It seems the answer is never disproving one person or the other, but rather takes the argument as fact and then finds the reason.
Option E here does this, telling us that they are both right (more tornadoes recorded and factors unchanged, but then the unrecorded tornadoes were just as high beforehand, citizens have now stepped up and helped us find them, but they always existed).
Option A is a tricky answer since it almost sounds right.
It is saying that the meteorologists, before 1953, actually did not know the factors well, so their statement saying factors are unchanged is shaky. Maybe before it was lower, and now it is higher, which explains more tornadoes.
However, because the argument is talking about tornadoes since 1953, option A really doesn't apply. Sure, before we did not know. But since 1953, which is the time period we are interested in, the meteorologists may have known! Actually, it is probably reasonable to assume that the factors ARE known, since A says before 1953 it wasn't. If we know the factors at and after 1953, then the discrepancy still stands and A does not help us.
What I wonder is:
What if we had option A say that meteorologists in year 1953 did not know the factors.
This then throws shade on them, saying hey, you can't make the claim that factors are unchanged, since you did not even know them at the start of the period. Maybe they were really low! And now they are baseline. This would explain the increase in tornadoes.
This option, now changed, would resolve the discrepancy by saying one party is wrong (rather than bridging).
Anyone know if this would be right?
2
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!
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.
73 comments
I was looking for an answer choice that gave us a different reason for why tornadoes were occurring more so this just fully broke my brain. :) And it hurt extra seeing the difficulty be so low. :) yippee
I feel like this was pretty obvious
This just stressed me tf out and I still don’t understand how E was correct
I immediately assumed that there must be diagnostic differences in how we identify tornadoes.
I've been watching too much House MD
I got this one right but I strongly considered D, for a different reason than in the explanation. I took it as kind of the same as E. More property damage because there are more people where tornadoes are popping up. That would mean some tornadoes that previously maybe nobody actually saw, unreported, are now seen and reported. I feel like if E didn't explicitly say basically the same thing as my assumption, D still could have been a valid answer choice. I guess my point is, in my head D is only wrong because there is a better answer choice, bot because it's downright wrong.
the teacher is so funny to me yall lol he makes this fun
I feel like these 'difficulty' ratings have far more to do with where the question landed in the test than the actual difficulty. This did not feel like a 2 difficulty it felt trickier than that because A is the most popular trap answer and when you are crunched on time you are much more likely to just go with your first impression. I would guess that if it was in section 4 question 25 instead of section 1 question 6 a lot more people would be getting it wrong. Still, don't think it would be a four or a five, probably a 3, but all the fours and fives I've seen have been near the end of sections where a good portion of people are probably guessing anyway because they ran out of time.
Does anyone know if they take test order and answer order into account when assigning difficulty or is it just based off the number of people who got it wrong?
In my mind, A is incorrect because it is talking about before 1953 and we are talking about things that have happened since 1953. is this correct to assume?
I got this right lol but I feel like detect and record are 2 very different things.
Anyone else just take it to be true that there was a 3x then get thrown by the answer choices and go back to read the stimulus and see "recorded"?
I'm finally starting to predict the answers before reading the answer choices. I didn't even think it was possible.
Twisters movie anyone?
#feedback#feedback Anyone got any adivice on confidence. First initial time through quickly eliminated all the answers down to E and then was like yeah that correct of course. But then I always tend to second guess myself which in turn made me go back through all the answers when that happens I start justifying the answers more and more and have the potential to choose the wrong one. It seems so hard to trust myself on this test because I have had instances on different questions where I was 100% sure and ended up getting baited into picking the wrong answer??
Got it right on the first go through getting E, then changed it like an idiot. I need to start trusting myself more.
You know you read the stimulus too quickly to get to the answer choices when you think it's asking about the intensity of TOMATOES
First one I got wrong in this section and my first note in BR was I don't like any of the answer choices and E- immediate elimination lmao
Finally some good news
Needed this W after the last two questions!
Oh man the past 2 you trys i got wrong, But i had the right answer as my other option that i just didn't pick, it feels good to know that I understand these at least now, and got this one right pretty easily.
Does anyone else regularly have issues with the 7sage site failing to load while watching videos? Or is this a me problem?
Not sure if this will help anyone out. But before looking at the answers I ask myself, What is it that I need to explain or resolve. I write what I think it is out and then look at the answers.
For example: If unchanged why 3x reported?
I haven't gotten a single question right in this section. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated...
Any tips on how to stop second guessing yourself? I keep choosing the right answer first and then switching it up to the other more "attractive" answer choice.
Where I went wrong in this question was because I focused on "Yet meteorologists insist that the climatic factors affecting the creation of tornadoes are unchanged." this led my brain into thinking about ways to solve this issue instead of focusing on the discrepancy with the number of tornados.
I have a question about RRE in general: are we to assume that the stimulus is true? That the statements made are correct, and then find the middle ground?
I've seen that basically all answers deal with the middle ground.
I ask because to resolve a discrepancy, I could either prove first person wrong, second person wrong, or find the explanation to bridge the two.
It seems the answer is never disproving one person or the other, but rather takes the argument as fact and then finds the reason.
Option E here does this, telling us that they are both right (more tornadoes recorded and factors unchanged, but then the unrecorded tornadoes were just as high beforehand, citizens have now stepped up and helped us find them, but they always existed).
Option A is a tricky answer since it almost sounds right.
It is saying that the meteorologists, before 1953, actually did not know the factors well, so their statement saying factors are unchanged is shaky. Maybe before it was lower, and now it is higher, which explains more tornadoes.
However, because the argument is talking about tornadoes since 1953, option A really doesn't apply. Sure, before we did not know. But since 1953, which is the time period we are interested in, the meteorologists may have known! Actually, it is probably reasonable to assume that the factors ARE known, since A says before 1953 it wasn't. If we know the factors at and after 1953, then the discrepancy still stands and A does not help us.
What I wonder is:
What if we had option A say that meteorologists in year 1953 did not know the factors.
This then throws shade on them, saying hey, you can't make the claim that factors are unchanged, since you did not even know them at the start of the period. Maybe they were really low! And now they are baseline. This would explain the increase in tornadoes.
This option, now changed, would resolve the discrepancy by saying one party is wrong (rather than bridging).
Anyone know if this would be right?