I'm still confused on how answer choice A can be right. If the proportion of car thieves who abandon the car before it is noticed to be stolen has decreased, then wouldn't that mean that car thefts has increased, which contradicts the first fact in the stim? If 5 years ago 50% of car thieves abandoned the car before it was noticed to be stolen but now only 25% of car thieves abandon the car before it is stolen, would that not mean that there are more car thefts now since less thieves are abandoning them? I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that a car that is never noticed to have been stolen would not be counted as a car theft.
In answer E, why shouldn't I assume that less adolescent car thieves means less overall thieves, not that the proportion has changed? For example, lets say there were 50 adult thieves and 50 adolescent thieves, and with the statements in answer E I can conclude that now there are 50 adult thieves and 40 adolescent thieves. Is it unreasonable to assume that there are less automobile thefts because there are less overall thieves? Why should I assume that the proportion changed and not the actual amount?
Another where I had to re-read the answers. A seemed very obvious after that.
Reading CAREFULLY was really required.
Less Car thieves now (in my mind, this was a check (something in stimulus addressed: Great)).
Next part, I had to make an example in my head to understand it.
Tom steals a car 5 years ago, BUT he leaves it literally down the street (must have driven like 10 secs). So, owner didn't notice, did or didn't call cops until the morning maybe, but Tom was long gone.
BUT NOW, Tom stole the car, and drove it until the morning. The owner comes out, sees car missing, calls cops. Tom could be caught. Tom could be charged. Tom could be convicted.
In my mind. BAM! Check for the other part of the stimulus.
Unfortunately, this took 1:25 over for 3:07. But considering time saved on easier questions... maybe... plus just a right answer in general, I'm happy. Better to know a correct answer on one question than guess on 3 others.
A was not assumption based out of all these answer choices. If thieves aren't abandoning cars, they will get caught as opposed to abandoning cars because how else would they get caught
What I will do, is when I find an answer that seems reasonable, I say "that seems reasonable" but I don't commit until I eliminate the other options, as there could be one with less assumptions/support. Did this method of POE and still finished with 31 seconds to spare, choosing the correct answer.
A was based on assumptions, but B offered the same weight of assumptions. The way I understood B was: car alarms deterred a number of thefts altogether (hence, the number of thefts declined), yet people ignoring those alarms enabled the completion of actual thefts. Kinda like stealing Louvre jewels in the middle of a day... Aren't those valid assumptions?
A is actually saying the same thing in the stimulus, just in an obscure way. There may be less thieves abandoning cars because they are being caught before they can abandon them, hence conviction rates going up.
But I only got this one right because of POE and all the other answers being contradictory.
for RRE questions, is it suggested to choose the answer and move on as soon as we read one that makes sense or should we always read them all to be sure to fully execute POE? Just wondering for time
@Catpop (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.
did anyone else not think this was a discrepancy? Car thefts decreasing makes sense if conviction rates are higher. Its just crazy that they made an answer choice that is correct while making it more confusing lol
I thought (B) is saying the propensity results in the thief's ignoring of the alarm, like the thief (who perform thefts everyday and take such activities as normal life) observed the propensity and take the alarm ring as something normal, yet it sounds to other people something cautionary. So the thief who drives the car doesn't notice the alarm while the people passing by noticed, and the thief then being found out and convicted...
Totally wrong understanding of the words.
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.
170 comments
I think the biggest issue is after being drilled NOT to make assumptions to now make assumptions......
this is so confusing
I'm still confused on how answer choice A can be right. If the proportion of car thieves who abandon the car before it is noticed to be stolen has decreased, then wouldn't that mean that car thefts has increased, which contradicts the first fact in the stim? If 5 years ago 50% of car thieves abandoned the car before it was noticed to be stolen but now only 25% of car thieves abandon the car before it is stolen, would that not mean that there are more car thefts now since less thieves are abandoning them? I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that a car that is never noticed to have been stolen would not be counted as a car theft.
In answer E, why shouldn't I assume that less adolescent car thieves means less overall thieves, not that the proportion has changed? For example, lets say there were 50 adult thieves and 50 adolescent thieves, and with the statements in answer E I can conclude that now there are 50 adult thieves and 40 adolescent thieves. Is it unreasonable to assume that there are less automobile thefts because there are less overall thieves? Why should I assume that the proportion changed and not the actual amount?
Wow, my brain hurt with this one. The "decreased" was so hard for my brain to process for some reason.
Another where I had to re-read the answers. A seemed very obvious after that.
Reading CAREFULLY was really required.
Less Car thieves now (in my mind, this was a check (something in stimulus addressed: Great)).
Next part, I had to make an example in my head to understand it.
Tom steals a car 5 years ago, BUT he leaves it literally down the street (must have driven like 10 secs). So, owner didn't notice, did or didn't call cops until the morning maybe, but Tom was long gone.
BUT NOW, Tom stole the car, and drove it until the morning. The owner comes out, sees car missing, calls cops. Tom could be caught. Tom could be charged. Tom could be convicted.
In my mind. BAM! Check for the other part of the stimulus.
Unfortunately, this took 1:25 over for 3:07. But considering time saved on easier questions... maybe... plus just a right answer in general, I'm happy. Better to know a correct answer on one question than guess on 3 others.
Time to watch the video now.
I'm losing my mind
how in the world does this question have a "math" label
more criminals are being caught now because less of them are abandoning the scene
RRE are definitely the most fun ones covered so far. MSS feel much harder, although MC are likely the easiest for me.
A was not assumption based out of all these answer choices. If thieves aren't abandoning cars, they will get caught as opposed to abandoning cars because how else would they get caught
What I will do, is when I find an answer that seems reasonable, I say "that seems reasonable" but I don't commit until I eliminate the other options, as there could be one with less assumptions/support. Did this method of POE and still finished with 31 seconds to spare, choosing the correct answer.
RRE questions seriously confuse me ugh
I think the written answer explanations were easier to follow than the video.
RRE is proving to be the most difficult question type for me... I should drill more of these so I better understand RRE's patterns.
A was based on assumptions, but B offered the same weight of assumptions. The way I understood B was: car alarms deterred a number of thefts altogether (hence, the number of thefts declined), yet people ignoring those alarms enabled the completion of actual thefts. Kinda like stealing Louvre jewels in the middle of a day... Aren't those valid assumptions?
A is actually saying the same thing in the stimulus, just in an obscure way. There may be less thieves abandoning cars because they are being caught before they can abandon them, hence conviction rates going up.
But I only got this one right because of POE and all the other answers being contradictory.
for RRE questions, is it suggested to choose the answer and move on as soon as we read one that makes sense or should we always read them all to be sure to fully execute POE? Just wondering for time
@Catpop (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.
A being the answer actually ruined my day. lol. HOW
- It doesn't even address the conviction of the crime rising
what is this
Good God, this question type is by far the worst and it's killing me.
The answer choices for this question were... professionally speaking... cheeks
did anyone else not think this was a discrepancy? Car thefts decreasing makes sense if conviction rates are higher. Its just crazy that they made an answer choice that is correct while making it more confusing lol
I thought (B) is saying the propensity results in the thief's ignoring of the alarm, like the thief (who perform thefts everyday and take such activities as normal life) observed the propensity and take the alarm ring as something normal, yet it sounds to other people something cautionary. So the thief who drives the car doesn't notice the alarm while the people passing by noticed, and the thief then being found out and convicted...
Totally wrong understanding of the words.