@ChandaM, but YOU are not making any assumptions. Each answer is a possible hypothesis; they each make their own assumptions. We just evaluate how strong the viability of truth is if the assumptions are true, but we are not coming up with any assumptions ourselves.
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.
@dbellonz well, I think there were more thefts back then but they tend to abandon the car before owner notice compared to nowadays, which make its harder to catch them, resulting in less conviction.
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?
@ValeriaFranco lol same. I had to imagine that before there used to be, let's say, 10 thieves and they all abandoned the cars, hence they never got caught. But now, let's say, there are 5 thieves and none of them abandon the cars.
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?
@KatiaMiles "Convictions" is another main element here. Even though car thefts have declined now, convictions have increased, meaning more thieves are getting caught now than they used to.
Hence answer choice A, that the thieves are not abandoning the cars and are getting caught and convicted.
Answer choice B doesn't check the convictions part of the stimulus.
@MnM Alright, thank you. Though "not abandoning" might as well mean "getting away with crime" - where does it say that by the time the owners noticed... the thieves were gone with the cars. I am not convinced.
These questions types do use assumptions which lead to more confusion. So, I totally feel you there.
Answer choice A implies that since the thieves a re not abandoning cars they are getting caught, hence more convictions.
Although there are fewer car thieves now than there were five years ago, the proportion of thieves who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice that they have been stolen has also decreased.
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
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.
180 comments
I knew it was A and I ignored my gut feeling BOTH times... listen to ur gut, kids
I was between A and E
the way that i got this right but i just take too long to answer bc i dont fully trust myself :( we will Get there eventually
i suck at these questions lol
POE has been my friend every time lol cux half these answer choices don't make sense lol
Brutal
My gut instinct has been right every time, and I convinced myself A makes no sense. 🤦♀️
@MarieChavis I was right there with you. I liked A at first but it just didnt seem like the right fit.
I think the biggest issue is after being drilled NOT to make assumptions to now make assumptions......
@ChandaM, but YOU are not making any assumptions. Each answer is a possible hypothesis; they each make their own assumptions. We just evaluate how strong the viability of truth is if the assumptions are true, but we are not coming up with any assumptions ourselves.
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.
@dbellonz well, I think there were more thefts back then but they tend to abandon the car before owner notice compared to nowadays, which make its harder to catch them, resulting in less conviction.
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.
@ValeriaFranco lol same. I had to imagine that before there used to be, let's say, 10 thieves and they all abandoned the cars, hence they never got caught. But now, let's say, there are 5 thieves and none of them abandon the cars.
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.
@TylerMadani021 Amen
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?
@KatiaMiles "Convictions" is another main element here. Even though car thefts have declined now, convictions have increased, meaning more thieves are getting caught now than they used to.
Hence answer choice A, that the thieves are not abandoning the cars and are getting caught and convicted.
Answer choice B doesn't check the convictions part of the stimulus.
@MnM Alright, thank you. Though "not abandoning" might as well mean "getting away with crime" - where does it say that by the time the owners noticed... the thieves were gone with the cars. I am not convinced.
@KatiaMiles
These questions types do use assumptions which lead to more confusion. So, I totally feel you there.
Answer choice A implies that since the thieves a re not abandoning cars they are getting caught, hence more convictions.
Although there are fewer car thieves now than there were five years ago, the proportion of thieves who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice that they have been stolen has also decreased.
@MnM that brings me back to my original note :) Overall, I agree that A is a stronger assumption, but they could have written it better.
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