This is an old post...but for the sake of helping anyone newer or perhaps if you're still doing the CC.. you can see the pt.s.q. in the url (the website address) and look at it prior too watching the video. Thats what I have been doing. This one is pt62.s4.q.26
I just type in the title of the lesson followed by lsat 7sage. So for this one I googled "Poverty and malnourishment LSAT 7sage" and it'll be the first link that pops up! But don't scroll down too far cause they'll show the answer below!
#feedback I wish at the end of these explanation videos, he would show us in real time how he would solve these problems on the test. I find myself using this logic while doing the test, but it takes way too long, and I have not found a way to compress the explanation into 1 minute.
Sometimes I get a little confused when we start a new question type and we go straight into analyzing a question without super in-depth information on the question type such as with the RRE so far (at least in my opinion). So, I went onto Law Hub, and they had a really good article breaking down RRE questions on what they are and how to break down answering them. So, for anybody who struggles here and needs a more in-depth breakdown of the question types, I would highly recommend checking there.
the video didn't do a very good job of delineating which of the answers is right.. by the end... i had to go through and reread the text post to realize that D is right, even then it was hidden in the end. Feedback note. Overall, still understood the lesson and why each answer was leaning towards helping the discrepancy, except for D.
I don't know if I got lucky but I chose D and it was correct. I read through the stim and the passage. I knew I was looking for an explanation that DID NOT solve the discrepency given by the passage.
So, looking at the answer choices, only one of them, D, is using the words "no more likely" to compare two aspects of two different aged groups of people.
With these questions I get reminded of the spectrum of support, where this would fall in the middle, offering nothing because "no more likely" indicates that the same outcome could/couldnt happen. If the same outcome would happen, why is there even a discrepency??
So, D is the correct answer because it indicates there is no discrepency, when there indeed is one. Therefore, it DOES NOT explain the findings.
@ReeseWalter same! this tripped me up a bit. i think because before this question type we drill so hard to look for which one works we almost forget this one asked for the opposite
I am going to break down the stimulus and question stims to make sense out of it.
A recent study of 5,000 individuals found, on the basis of a physical exam, that more than 25 percent of people older than 65 were malnourished, though only 12 percent of the people in this age group fell below government poverty standards. In contrast, a greater percentage of the people 65 or younger fell below poverty standards than were found in the study to be malnourished.
The stimulus is telling us that:
A study was done recently
It was on the basis of physical exam
There were 5,000 participants in the study
The participants consisted of two groups: people over 65 (65+) & people younger than 65(65-)
What were the finding for 65+?
More than 25% of them were found to be malnourished
But
Only 12% were below poverty line.
What were the finding for 65-?
It was the opposite
% of those below poverty line > % of those malnourished
Why the numbers are flipped between these two groups ( 65+ and 65-)?
The Question Stim offers 4 ACs that support why the numbers are flipped. However, we are asked to find the one AC that does not offer any support/explanation for why the number is flipped:
A. explains the discrepancy
Doctors's misdiagnosing the malnutrition in 65+ means that the data generated is not accurate. It could be the same % for both groups
B. explains the discrepancy
65+ takes medications and need more nutrients comapred to 65-. That is why their number is higher in regards to mulnutrition
C. explains the discrepancy
65+ suffer from loss of appetite than 65-. Loss of appetite leads to not eating enough and therefore lacking nutrients and mulnutrition
D. Does NOT explain the discrepancy
It comapres the likelihood of the two groups falling into poverty line, saying that less 65- falls under poverty line than do 65+. It still does not explain why the rate for malnutrition is flipped between the two groups.
E. explains the discrepancy
65- have less medical conditions that interfere with digestion compared to 65+. That means their body absorb the nutrients better and thus less mulnutritioned.
I didn't see Answer choice A the way it was explained. I saw it as meaning that doctors aren't diagnosing and treating malnutrition correctly for people who are 65+, and that's why more of this group suffer from malnutrition ("were malnourished") and the percentage is higher, so it helps explain and gets eliminated. But in the video explanation, he says that maybe doctors are diagnosing & treating it too frequently in that group, so the true rate is actually lower? Are both of these interpretations possible or is my interpretation not possible?
I think he explained it the same way, just using comparative language to visualize the other side of the argument being made. I took both your explanation and his as doctors are failing to diagnose and treat malnutrition in patients 65+ when compared to their how well the treat them in patients under 65. Which either way gives a valid explanation which eliminates it as a correct answer.
I interpreted it the same way. Since the study we assume is being correct in its diagnosing, and it isn't specified that we are having doctors do the diagnosing in the passage. I think we were correct on this one...
I appreciate this comment, because i felt the text's description of how A is challenging the stimulus' info is actually contradictory to the principle that RRE questions are about finding explanations that allow the stimulus' components to be true, yet reconciled.
I'm ignoring their explanation of A for the time being unless this principle later proves wrong.
Since I'm seeing lots of post regarding the confusion and I was also confused. I went directly to the explanation that better explained why answer choice D is correct, which is:
Answer choice D: People 65 or younger are no more likely to fall below government poverty standards than are people over 65.
No matter what the poverty rate for the younger group is, their malnutrition rate is lower. The rates are still flipped for the two groups. This doesn’t explain anything.
@Helen_Bouchereau I thought the same thing. I had to go below to the text after the video, which I usually don’t do, to see that D was correct. From rewatching the video I believe that the instructor was circling the ones that explained the phenomenon because we were looking for the 4 which helped explain and the one left out would be the correct one. It wasn’t said so explicitly
#feedback I found it confusing how in this video, you're circling the wrong answers and crossing out the right answer just because it's an "except" question. Surely because it's the right answer D is the one that should be circled I would think.
RRE is the hardest question type for me thus far. I managed to quick view this one and get it right, but I really had to slow down, read, and think things through. I won't have the luxury of this time during the exam, so I'll have to figure out whether it makes more sense to try to parse out the answer, or skip and come back...
I got it right but don't really see why its right. It wasn't quite a guess but I couldn't diagram out why its right. It just seems unrelated to the sample.
D sticks out cause it just doesn't really add much to this conversation. So what if they are "no more likely"? that doesn't help resolve the phenomenon.
if anything, it goes against the phenomenon, from what the stim says, im getting that young people are more likely to be in poverty and D says the opposite
96 comments
I genuinely hate EXCEPT questions
Hopefully I will be under 65 when I can finally take the LSAT.
LOL your comment is is 3 weeks old. How have you been progressing with the course?
@mszchloechen640 quite literally same
skipping this question, got it
mood
we need to see the questions prior to JYs explanation
This is an old post...but for the sake of helping anyone newer or perhaps if you're still doing the CC.. you can see the pt.s.q. in the url (the website address) and look at it prior too watching the video. Thats what I have been doing. This one is pt62.s4.q.26
I second this!
I just type in the title of the lesson followed by lsat 7sage. So for this one I googled "Poverty and malnourishment LSAT 7sage" and it'll be the first link that pops up! But don't scroll down too far cause they'll show the answer below!
#feedback I wish at the end of these explanation videos, he would show us in real time how he would solve these problems on the test. I find myself using this logic while doing the test, but it takes way too long, and I have not found a way to compress the explanation into 1 minute.
I would hate to ever see this question again im so serious
Sometimes I get a little confused when we start a new question type and we go straight into analyzing a question without super in-depth information on the question type such as with the RRE so far (at least in my opinion). So, I went onto Law Hub, and they had a really good article breaking down RRE questions on what they are and how to break down answering them. So, for anybody who struggles here and needs a more in-depth breakdown of the question types, I would highly recommend checking there.
@AlyssaV33 will do that thank you
@AlyssaV33 can you pls give the law hub link here! That would be so helpful
@Isra Here it is- LSAT Prep Library: Official Practice Tests — LawHub
the video didn't do a very good job of delineating which of the answers is right.. by the end... i had to go through and reread the text post to realize that D is right, even then it was hidden in the end. Feedback note. Overall, still understood the lesson and why each answer was leaning towards helping the discrepancy, except for D.
@mrrobotjeremy I agree- I was so confused at first!
Need more help on timing tips bcz we do not have time to draw a chart or think about questions this deeply.
why is he circling most of the answer choices its confusing
@Alondra_Sanchez He's circling them because they actually are helping explain the discrepancy. However, the question is an EXCEPT question.
#feedback watching a 13 min video without seeing all the answers next to each other makes understanding the question so much harder...
I second this.
there is a quick view option on the top of the video that allows you to view the question prior to.
irritated
I don't know if I got lucky but I chose D and it was correct. I read through the stim and the passage. I knew I was looking for an explanation that DID NOT solve the discrepency given by the passage.
So, looking at the answer choices, only one of them, D, is using the words "no more likely" to compare two aspects of two different aged groups of people.
With these questions I get reminded of the spectrum of support, where this would fall in the middle, offering nothing because "no more likely" indicates that the same outcome could/couldnt happen. If the same outcome would happen, why is there even a discrepency??
So, D is the correct answer because it indicates there is no discrepency, when there indeed is one. Therefore, it DOES NOT explain the findings.
@OwenTrela this helped me!
i am such an idiot, i didn't notice it said "except" and was like "ummm... most of these could be it!"
@ReeseWalter same! this tripped me up a bit. i think because before this question type we drill so hard to look for which one works we almost forget this one asked for the opposite
@ReeseWalter I did this too until I reminded myself that I am picking 4 correct answers as oppose to just one
I am going to break down the stimulus and question stims to make sense out of it.
A recent study of 5,000 individuals found, on the basis of a physical exam, that more than 25 percent of people older than 65 were malnourished, though only 12 percent of the people in this age group fell below government poverty standards. In contrast, a greater percentage of the people 65 or younger fell below poverty standards than were found in the study to be malnourished.
The stimulus is telling us that:
A study was done recently
It was on the basis of physical exam
There were 5,000 participants in the study
The participants consisted of two groups: people over 65 (65+) & people younger than 65(65-)
What were the finding for 65+?
More than 25% of them were found to be malnourished
But
Only 12% were below poverty line.
What were the finding for 65-?
It was the opposite
% of those below poverty line > % of those malnourished
Why the numbers are flipped between these two groups ( 65+ and 65-)?
The Question Stim offers 4 ACs that support why the numbers are flipped. However, we are asked to find the one AC that does not offer any support/explanation for why the number is flipped:
A. explains the discrepancy
Doctors's misdiagnosing the malnutrition in 65+ means that the data generated is not accurate. It could be the same % for both groups
B. explains the discrepancy
65+ takes medications and need more nutrients comapred to 65-. That is why their number is higher in regards to mulnutrition
C. explains the discrepancy
65+ suffer from loss of appetite than 65-. Loss of appetite leads to not eating enough and therefore lacking nutrients and mulnutrition
D. Does NOT explain the discrepancy
It comapres the likelihood of the two groups falling into poverty line, saying that less 65- falls under poverty line than do 65+. It still does not explain why the rate for malnutrition is flipped between the two groups.
E. explains the discrepancy
65- have less medical conditions that interfere with digestion compared to 65+. That means their body absorb the nutrients better and thus less mulnutritioned.
I didn't see Answer choice A the way it was explained. I saw it as meaning that doctors aren't diagnosing and treating malnutrition correctly for people who are 65+, and that's why more of this group suffer from malnutrition ("were malnourished") and the percentage is higher, so it helps explain and gets eliminated. But in the video explanation, he says that maybe doctors are diagnosing & treating it too frequently in that group, so the true rate is actually lower? Are both of these interpretations possible or is my interpretation not possible?
I think he explained it the same way, just using comparative language to visualize the other side of the argument being made. I took both your explanation and his as doctors are failing to diagnose and treat malnutrition in patients 65+ when compared to their how well the treat them in patients under 65. Which either way gives a valid explanation which eliminates it as a correct answer.
I interpreted it the same way. Since the study we assume is being correct in its diagnosing, and it isn't specified that we are having doctors do the diagnosing in the passage. I think we were correct on this one...
I appreciate this comment, because i felt the text's description of how A is challenging the stimulus' info is actually contradictory to the principle that RRE questions are about finding explanations that allow the stimulus' components to be true, yet reconciled.
I'm ignoring their explanation of A for the time being unless this principle later proves wrong.
Since I'm seeing lots of post regarding the confusion and I was also confused. I went directly to the explanation that better explained why answer choice D is correct, which is:
Answer choice D: People 65 or younger are no more likely to fall below government poverty standards than are people over 65.
No matter what the poverty rate for the younger group is, their malnutrition rate is lower. The rates are still flipped for the two groups. This doesn’t explain anything.
Hope this helps others!
@TheAnalyst Clutch😎
If it's an except question he should have only circled the right answer, that didn't explain the stimulus
@Helen_Bouchereau I thought the same thing. I had to go below to the text after the video, which I usually don’t do, to see that D was correct. From rewatching the video I believe that the instructor was circling the ones that explained the phenomenon because we were looking for the 4 which helped explain and the one left out would be the correct one. It wasn’t said so explicitly
This was so confusing
#feedback I found it confusing how in this video, you're circling the wrong answers and crossing out the right answer just because it's an "except" question. Surely because it's the right answer D is the one that should be circled I would think.
he is circling ones that support the comparison, and he crossed D because its that one that doesn't support
RRE is the hardest question type for me thus far. I managed to quick view this one and get it right, but I really had to slow down, read, and think things through. I won't have the luxury of this time during the exam, so I'll have to figure out whether it makes more sense to try to parse out the answer, or skip and come back...
I got it right but don't really see why its right. It wasn't quite a guess but I couldn't diagram out why its right. It just seems unrelated to the sample.
confusing ahh question
D sticks out cause it just doesn't really add much to this conversation. So what if they are "no more likely"? that doesn't help resolve the phenomenon.
if anything, it goes against the phenomenon, from what the stim says, im getting that young people are more likely to be in poverty and D says the opposite
So hard to keep the EXCEPT in mind