@IsabelSafar It's dumb but I've used this strategy for every test I've ever taken. Substitute the unknown word with a nonsense word, and you can get a good idea of how the word is being used, if not it's definition.
For example, I might reread the stimulus as:
"The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual waffles accompanying migration. Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for this year's larger-than-usual bird population."
Waffles must be bad. Its implied that if there are waffles accompanying migration, there's less birds at the end of the migration.
Details aside. I think the main reason why A is not the best answer, is because it doesn't explain anything specific, or any causal mechanisms to support the argument. It's just a generic statement about what usually happens without explaining why.
I agree - maybe if it said "mildER" we would know in comparison it was different but maybe just compared to 2 years ago and maybe 3 years ago it was mild again and thats actually the average BUTTTTTTT I'm not sure if I would've caught this in an actual test - they probably would've caught me on this one;.
I second this! I loved that V1 of the logical reasoning curriculum had this feature. It made it so much easier to annotate questions, and for my learning style, I try to annotate all of the example questions. Having a quickview would make this way easier! #feedback
My brain automatically shut down answer choice C because I suspected eating at feeders is safer for birds than foraging naturally. #peoplecareforanimals #mothernaturenotsomuch
Took me a while to figure out that I'm looking for a misssing premise rather than affriming the conclusion. atleast that what makes the mose sense to me in this case.
Not that i am not gaining a ton out of these classes - but does anyone else sometimes skip or pause the videos early if you find the explanation is over explaning or like causing you to overthink the solution?
A critique about the explanations is its very obvious they know the answer and why its wrong, so the explanation just feels like 'think this way' rather than actually TEACHING. Its getting annoying lol
So, for this type of question, when the question stem says "strengthen the reasoning of the argument," we are looking for the answer that strengthens the premise??
Let's goooo. C is right because it directly shows how the mild winter caused a larger population. If the birds are more vulnerable by feeders, the mild winter prevented them from being eaten, causing the population to be larger than usual. A is wrong because just because a winter was mild does not mean it was unusual. That is another assumption the test makers want us to make.
Starting to see how the strengthen / weaken questions are really preying on us making unwarranted assumptions.
In Answer choice - C why are we considering that predators could affect the feeders. The stimulus doesnt even mention any predators. Please help me out.
May be a little late but the predators coming into this answer choice is what reinforces this as the right answer. We are told in the stimulus that mild winters allow bird species to forage naturally, which is why the proportion of birds visiting feeders has decreased.
We are then told in this answer choice that birds that attend feeders are more vulnerable to predators than when they forage naturally. Well... If less birds are visiting feeders, wouldn't that mean less are vulnerable to predators. Here I made an assumption that because they are now foraging naturally, their population will either remain the same, or increase, given that birds will mate, but there will be less of a negative impact on their population.
For that reason, we can determine that C is strengthening our explanation, simply because the mild weather is leading to less feeder visits from birds, reducing vulnerability of being eaten.
Answer choice C says that birds eating at feeders are more vulnerable to predators THAN are birds foraging naturally.
IF--as the stimulus suggests--the mild winter led more birds to forage naturally instead of relying on feeders, THEN fewer birds were exposed to the higher risk of predation associated with feeders. That means fewer birds would have been killed by predators this year compared to a typical winter (AKA, there is a larger-than-usual bird population this year).
I like to use hypothetical numbers sometimes to help me understand things more clearly. So, imagine that in a normal year, 1,000 birds feed at feeders, and 50% fall prey to predators—so 500 die. But this year, with the mild winter, maybe only 100 birds use feeders, resulting in just 50 deaths. That’s 450 fewer deaths due to predation, which naturally leads to a higher surviving bird population.
So, the mild winter indirectly caused a larger-than-usual bird population by reducing predation through decreased feeder usage.
Hope that helps clarify things—this one’s a bit tricky!
I actually cried tears of joy getting this one right after getting pretty much every other question wrong this module LOL (RIP – This module is putting me through the ringer I SWEAR)
Causal relationship questions require more work for me than all others. I hate them. Other types, I can read it, and work it all out in my head. Anyone feel the same way?
I also think it's a really good habit to force yourself to understand the argument without really understanding a few words. English is my second language, so I try to understand the meaning of some words by understanding the whole argument.
I usually just use the Merriam Webster dictionary definitions I find online. If you're asking about a list of LSAT words that you should memorize, I think a better approach is to keep a running list of words that you didn't know the meaning of, or that you weren't confident that you knew the meaning of. Then, look up the definitions of those words and quiz yourself on those definitions once every week.
I've found the same thing! I've been using context clues to try and figure out the meaning of unfamiliar words and answering the questions accordingly. Only during the blind review will I look up the word, and then I use it to re-evaluate the answer choices.
I find this method really helps me exercise my ability understand context and forces me to think more critically about the answer choices.
95 comments
I wonder if I would've gotten this right if I knew what attrition meant lol
@rjon27 yo that word messed me up
"Are they feeling more sexy or less?" LMAO
@makoleszar925 I chuckled too, thank you JY for flawless descriptive language lol
We have 10 minutes for a question like this right... right?
A lot of these trap answers had to do with pre-phase knowledge of birdies
how would you do this question if you do not know what "attrition" means?
I feel that I run into issues with not knowing the meaning of a word and then it impacts my ability to solve the question accurately.
@IsabelSafar It's dumb but I've used this strategy for every test I've ever taken. Substitute the unknown word with a nonsense word, and you can get a good idea of how the word is being used, if not it's definition.
For example, I might reread the stimulus as:
"The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual waffles accompanying migration. Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for this year's larger-than-usual bird population."
Waffles must be bad. Its implied that if there are waffles accompanying migration, there's less birds at the end of the migration.
For A, we also don't know if the mild winter was "unusual"
Details aside. I think the main reason why A is not the best answer, is because it doesn't explain anything specific, or any causal mechanisms to support the argument. It's just a generic statement about what usually happens without explaining why.
I agree - maybe if it said "mildER" we would know in comparison it was different but maybe just compared to 2 years ago and maybe 3 years ago it was mild again and thats actually the average BUTTTTTTT I'm not sure if I would've caught this in an actual test - they probably would've caught me on this one;.
it would be helpful to see a quickview of the question that we can annotate in our notes while we listen to the videos #help #feedback
I second this! I loved that V1 of the logical reasoning curriculum had this feature. It made it so much easier to annotate questions, and for my learning style, I try to annotate all of the example questions. Having a quickview would make this way easier! #feedback
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE this is exactly what i need too literally my eaxt thoughts!
Hi there,
Thanks for your valuable feedback! I will look into the possibility of incorporating your suggestions into the next iteration of 7Sage.
Let me know if you have any concerns. I am happy to help!
My brain automatically shut down answer choice C because I suspected eating at feeders is safer for birds than foraging naturally. #peoplecareforanimals #mothernaturenotsomuch
this is giving 'the circle' with the hashtags and i love it
also keep in mind it says the REASONING not the conclusion! that's why I looked at A to be a delicious answer !!
Took me a while to figure out that I'm looking for a misssing premise rather than affriming the conclusion. atleast that what makes the mose sense to me in this case.
@ChelseaOsei Thank you. I didn't get this until I read your comment.
the way i got this question right because i didnt know what "attrition" meant lmao
lol
Not that i am not gaining a ton out of these classes - but does anyone else sometimes skip or pause the videos early if you find the explanation is over explaning or like causing you to overthink the solution?
@Sunday_Blues13 yep, I feel like this section of classes isn't as strong as previous ones.
@Sunday_Blues13 For me--reading the lessons helps me better comprehend than watching the video
A critique about the explanations is its very obvious they know the answer and why its wrong, so the explanation just feels like 'think this way' rather than actually TEACHING. Its getting annoying lol
@QarimatOgunneye Reading the transcripts helps me more than watching the video
@bcn Agree with this! I stopped watching the videos and started reading instead. It has been helpful to do it this way.
keyword here was argument, not conclusion. conclusion was that birds were able to forage naturally. argument was around the feeder visitation rates
@yesterdayseeker ok this was super helpful because i was still stuck on the conclusion
So, for this type of question, when the question stem says "strengthen the reasoning of the argument," we are looking for the answer that strengthens the premise??
Let's goooo. C is right because it directly shows how the mild winter caused a larger population. If the birds are more vulnerable by feeders, the mild winter prevented them from being eaten, causing the population to be larger than usual. A is wrong because just because a winter was mild does not mean it was unusual. That is another assumption the test makers want us to make.
Starting to see how the strengthen / weaken questions are really preying on us making unwarranted assumptions.
My biggest opp is me....I didn't realize this was a strengthening question and nearly blew my brains out trying to figure out the answer....
Kinda surprised that it was a 5 difficulty question.
Very surprised this is a 5*.. go me!
In Answer choice - C why are we considering that predators could affect the feeders. The stimulus doesnt even mention any predators. Please help me out.
May be a little late but the predators coming into this answer choice is what reinforces this as the right answer. We are told in the stimulus that mild winters allow bird species to forage naturally, which is why the proportion of birds visiting feeders has decreased.
We are then told in this answer choice that birds that attend feeders are more vulnerable to predators than when they forage naturally. Well... If less birds are visiting feeders, wouldn't that mean less are vulnerable to predators. Here I made an assumption that because they are now foraging naturally, their population will either remain the same, or increase, given that birds will mate, but there will be less of a negative impact on their population.
For that reason, we can determine that C is strengthening our explanation, simply because the mild weather is leading to less feeder visits from birds, reducing vulnerability of being eaten.
Answer choice C says that birds eating at feeders are more vulnerable to predators THAN are birds foraging naturally.
IF--as the stimulus suggests--the mild winter led more birds to forage naturally instead of relying on feeders, THEN fewer birds were exposed to the higher risk of predation associated with feeders. That means fewer birds would have been killed by predators this year compared to a typical winter (AKA, there is a larger-than-usual bird population this year).
I like to use hypothetical numbers sometimes to help me understand things more clearly. So, imagine that in a normal year, 1,000 birds feed at feeders, and 50% fall prey to predators—so 500 die. But this year, with the mild winter, maybe only 100 birds use feeders, resulting in just 50 deaths. That’s 450 fewer deaths due to predation, which naturally leads to a higher surviving bird population.
So, the mild winter indirectly caused a larger-than-usual bird population by reducing predation through decreased feeder usage.
Hope that helps clarify things—this one’s a bit tricky!
This was a really good explanation!
I actually cried tears of joy getting this one right after getting pretty much every other question wrong this module LOL (RIP – This module is putting me through the ringer I SWEAR)
Same! Out of all question subtypes this one is the toughest for me. So glad I got this one right though.
just fell into the trap.
Causal relationship questions require more work for me than all others. I hate them. Other types, I can read it, and work it all out in my head. Anyone feel the same way?
@JRamirez yeah :(
Is there an LSAT dictionary we could use? I don't know what attrition and forage means exactly.
I also think it's a really good habit to force yourself to understand the argument without really understanding a few words. English is my second language, so I try to understand the meaning of some words by understanding the whole argument.
I usually just use the Merriam Webster dictionary definitions I find online. If you're asking about a list of LSAT words that you should memorize, I think a better approach is to keep a running list of words that you didn't know the meaning of, or that you weren't confident that you knew the meaning of. Then, look up the definitions of those words and quiz yourself on those definitions once every week.
Same! Context clues have saved me so far
I've found the same thing! I've been using context clues to try and figure out the meaning of unfamiliar words and answering the questions accordingly. Only during the blind review will I look up the word, and then I use it to re-evaluate the answer choices.
I find this method really helps me exercise my ability understand context and forces me to think more critically about the answer choices.
im having a hard time trying to figure out when it would be appropriate/good use of time to do a chain