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...
got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.
If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?
To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.
WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?
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.
163 comments
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.
got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.
If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?
To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.
WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?
I dont understand the reasoning of A.
cant lie, i almost obliterated my laptop screen cause of this one
I got it right but 3 mins and 31 seconds over-time because I have a need to POE even though I've identified an answer (just in case)
i fear im cooked ..
[This comment was deleted.]