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.
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.
D was the only one he crossed out. The rest he circled. In other words, A, B, C, and E are explanations. And D is not. His answer was D. You are correct, but he didn't mis-speak on anything. His answer was also D.
I have a sort of silly question, but given the stimulus on its own and not using any real world knowledge, how do we know that the percentage of malnourished people 65 or younger is lower than the over 65 group? If all we know about the 65 and younger group is that the malnourished % is smaller than the poverty % is it not plausible that for the 65 and younger group the poverty rate would be say 35% and the malnourished was 30%? If that is plausibly true then how do we know the four answer choices which would help to explain that folks 65 and younger are less malnourished actually explains the results of the study?
I think the important fact is that for [older than 65], the percentage of malnourishment is higher than that of poverty, and for [65 or younger] is opposite.
This can be organized like this:
[65+] : malnourishment > poverty
[65-] : malnourishment < poverty
Like you said, we don't know the actual percentage or each group, and also it can be like the case you mentioned. However, this does not affect the answer choices since they're talking 'inside' their group.
@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
This was a bit confusing... you mentioned how multiple different answers were very similar but didn't actually compare them against each other to show why would is more preferable to the other. This question definitely would have tripped me up, and I still don't feel confident that I could answer it if it was just me.
@sammeybobammey Yeah I actually have the same reaction. But I looked through this discussion section and other people's explanations and understandings helped me understand this question a lot better!
i am just wondering if in cases like this where the passage states "over 25%" do we take that to mean a number in a close proximation to 25% or can this mean from 25% to potentially 100%, the same way a "most" in LSAT means 50% but potentially up to 100%?
As in, more than 25 percent of people older than 65 being malnourished can logically mean 26%, 40%, 75%, or even 99%?
@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
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 think on these except questions due to the nature of them using POE to solve them often especially if its a challenging question. This is a great method and explained well, its just the video part showing the explanation is confusing for us. It is confusing seeing one answer at a time and seeing them circled one at a time as correct which is the right method I used it myself and got this right. But in video format seeing one circled at a time just messes with our heads. I think to resolve that for all of us it would be helpful if for this specific question type RRE Except using POE to hunt the answer all the answers should remain on screen to reduce confusion.
#feedback would it be possible to put the average time needed on the quick view questions? I almost always do the quick view to try my knowledge first, but this question especially is complicated, and I think it would be beneficial to at least know what we should be aiming for in each question, despite not necessarily timing it.
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 think the biggest assumption we stick to when we ruled out the wrong answer choices is that
"the percentage of people in group 2 (65 and younger) is less than the percentage of people in group 1 (65 and older) which is 25%"
the last sentence compares % of people within the same group 2, or atleast thats what i understand from the explanation.
25% is not even more than half the group 1, so it wont even be half the entire population of 5000.
say that, group 2 makes up more than half the entire population of 5000. and the % that are malnourished in group 2 is 30% and % that fall below poverty in group 2 is 55%.
the last statement will still be true.
but then makes ruling out the wrong answers confusing, because 30% of group 2 is greater than 25% of group 1.
correct me if my understanding of the last statement is wrong.
This is so confusing: "For the sub-group who were 65 or younger, the percentages flipped around: a higher % fell below poverty standards than are malnourished. " So in my understanding, younger group was poorer but not malnourished. So answer D says "no more likely to fall below poverty than older group". E made sense to me to be irrelevant thus correct answer
the poverty situation matters less than the nourishment part of the stimulus in terms of helping answer the question. the answer choice that are correct in rectifying the issue are the ones that help explain why the malnourishment of the 65 + group is higher even tho they got money vs why those who are young but broke are fairly healthy. while the wrong answer choice is the one that just doesn't help answer why there's this discrepancy, or does nothing for it.
E helps in explaining this issue because it's saying that the young people don't have medical conditions which would make them malnourished, and this leads us to be like ohhh ok so that makes sense why even tho they're broke, they're still fairly healthy. D does not help to explain the discrepancy because it just has no bearing on the facts of the stimulus. it doesn't help in proving or disproving anything, whether or not the younger and older people have relatively similar chances at being poor doesn't help explain why the older ones are malnourished, nor does it help explain why the younger ones are nourished.
For the sub-group who were 65 or younger, the percentages flipped around: a higher % fell below poverty standards than are malnourished. What are the specific percentages? That information was not provided.
Which means for this sub-group the percentage of the malnourished can be 80% and below poverty standards 90% for example. In this case, none of the answers makes sense.
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.
85 comments
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.
I genuinely hate EXCEPT questions
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😎
I'm no expert... but D is the only one that didn't help explain the discrepancy... soooo...
I think D is the correct answer and the instructor just misspoke
@TMoney
D was the only one he crossed out. The rest he circled. In other words, A, B, C, and E are explanations. And D is not. His answer was D. You are correct, but he didn't mis-speak on anything. His answer was also D.
@DNAlex you are right
I have a sort of silly question, but given the stimulus on its own and not using any real world knowledge, how do we know that the percentage of malnourished people 65 or younger is lower than the over 65 group? If all we know about the 65 and younger group is that the malnourished % is smaller than the poverty % is it not plausible that for the 65 and younger group the poverty rate would be say 35% and the malnourished was 30%? If that is plausibly true then how do we know the four answer choices which would help to explain that folks 65 and younger are less malnourished actually explains the results of the study?
@HenryLehmann
I think the important fact is that for [older than 65], the percentage of malnourishment is higher than that of poverty, and for [65 or younger] is opposite.
This can be organized like this:
[65+] : malnourishment > poverty
[65-] : malnourishment < poverty
Like you said, we don't know the actual percentage or each group, and also it can be like the case you mentioned. However, this does not affect the answer choices since they're talking 'inside' their group.
Hope this helps!
Makes sense.
I would hate to ever see this question again im so serious
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
does this include people the age of 67?
This was a bit confusing... you mentioned how multiple different answers were very similar but didn't actually compare them against each other to show why would is more preferable to the other. This question definitely would have tripped me up, and I still don't feel confident that I could answer it if it was just me.
@sammeybobammey Yeah I actually have the same reaction. But I looked through this discussion section and other people's explanations and understandings helped me understand this question a lot better!
i am just wondering if in cases like this where the passage states "over 25%" do we take that to mean a number in a close proximation to 25% or can this mean from 25% to potentially 100%, the same way a "most" in LSAT means 50% but potentially up to 100%?
As in, more than 25 percent of people older than 65 being malnourished can logically mean 26%, 40%, 75%, or even 99%?
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
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!
I think on these except questions due to the nature of them using POE to solve them often especially if its a challenging question. This is a great method and explained well, its just the video part showing the explanation is confusing for us. It is confusing seeing one answer at a time and seeing them circled one at a time as correct which is the right method I used it myself and got this right. But in video format seeing one circled at a time just messes with our heads. I think to resolve that for all of us it would be helpful if for this specific question type RRE Except using POE to hunt the answer all the answers should remain on screen to reduce confusion.
why there's no "quick view" feature now, is it only me? I was able to do quick view on Lessons before jumping into the explanation.
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 would it be possible to put the average time needed on the quick view questions? I almost always do the quick view to try my knowledge first, but this question especially is complicated, and I think it would be beneficial to at least know what we should be aiming for in each question, despite not necessarily timing it.
This was so confusing
irritated
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 think the biggest assumption we stick to when we ruled out the wrong answer choices is that
"the percentage of people in group 2 (65 and younger) is less than the percentage of people in group 1 (65 and older) which is 25%"
the last sentence compares % of people within the same group 2, or atleast thats what i understand from the explanation.
25% is not even more than half the group 1, so it wont even be half the entire population of 5000.
say that, group 2 makes up more than half the entire population of 5000. and the % that are malnourished in group 2 is 30% and % that fall below poverty in group 2 is 55%.
the last statement will still be true.
but then makes ruling out the wrong answers confusing, because 30% of group 2 is greater than 25% of group 1.
correct me if my understanding of the last statement is wrong.
This is so confusing: "For the sub-group who were 65 or younger, the percentages flipped around: a higher % fell below poverty standards than are malnourished. " So in my understanding, younger group was poorer but not malnourished. So answer D says "no more likely to fall below poverty than older group". E made sense to me to be irrelevant thus correct answer
the poverty situation matters less than the nourishment part of the stimulus in terms of helping answer the question. the answer choice that are correct in rectifying the issue are the ones that help explain why the malnourishment of the 65 + group is higher even tho they got money vs why those who are young but broke are fairly healthy. while the wrong answer choice is the one that just doesn't help answer why there's this discrepancy, or does nothing for it.
E helps in explaining this issue because it's saying that the young people don't have medical conditions which would make them malnourished, and this leads us to be like ohhh ok so that makes sense why even tho they're broke, they're still fairly healthy. D does not help to explain the discrepancy because it just has no bearing on the facts of the stimulus. it doesn't help in proving or disproving anything, whether or not the younger and older people have relatively similar chances at being poor doesn't help explain why the older ones are malnourished, nor does it help explain why the younger ones are nourished.
That is such an ambiguous last sentence. What does it even mean?
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?
I find this question very confusing.
From the notes:
For the sub-group who were 65 or younger, the percentages flipped around: a higher % fell below poverty standards than are malnourished. What are the specific percentages? That information was not provided.
Which means for this sub-group the percentage of the malnourished can be 80% and below poverty standards 90% for example. In this case, none of the answers makes sense.
I was thinking the same thing! #feedback