I poe'd through this question again and I got my answer right. However, it was tricky considering that every answer seemed to switch around an idea. But I did notice some language changes:
B used "in most cases" and "believe" which sounds too forward and also too assuming. The passage does not bring up what lawmakers "believe."
C used "great harm" which is also too forward and not mentioned/irrelevant to the passage.
D is a neutral answer.
E used "effectively deterred" which is another irrelevant idea not mentioned in the passage.
I feel like they are trying to trick you to assume that the penalty for theft has been INCREASED to match that of bribery? I quickly realized my wrong assumption there and snapped out of it.
I got it correct but hesitated on answer A because it started with "in general"... I feel like in several previous lessons we've been able to cross out answer choices because they say "in general" -- is that not the case here?
@LSATKilla87 I had the same thought process in a similar question that had an "in general rule". Basically, rules don't have to be airtight to strengthen an argument. Let's say if "most of the time, rule A is applied", then it would strengthen the argument that if the stimulus were also supportive of this rule, if true.
Here, I talked myself out of the wrong answer because of some of the other lessons. I thought A only addressed a subset of the problem in that it only looks at harm-to-crime ratios BUT NOT linking the two crimes mentioned in the stimulus. I think I thought the ideal answer would say something along the lines of A AND mention or affirm that theft and bribery were similar.
So, I then chose D. Because I thought it at least connected the two crimes in some way that allows you to eliminate the "puzzling feeling" like we do in RRE. Or support that the evident consideration was in fact valid?!
But as I type this out...I think I get why it was wrong and see the error of my reasoning.
But I'm nervous that I'll mix up tasks and approaches to the correct answer like this again (sigh).
I truly have been struggling since WSE now this. Feeling a bit depleted and after trying question after question getting them wrong, not really sure how to switch my approach or understanding. Any advice?
@Tswizzle25 No, literally in the same boat. I have probably gotten one answer right a day when going through this module. And every time I think I got it and feel confident, I get it wrong
@KendallFrancis05 I hear you. You're not alone! Keep pushing and drilling (what im trying to tell myself). Had to just go to sleep and wake up try again haha
@Tswizzle25 What helps me with these questions is to talk everything outloud. Humanizing the stimulus makes it more relatable for me to understand and pick the correct answer!
I'm always torn when I see the correct answer right away. I knew A was correct and Choose to Submit Immediately without looking at the others ti save time but i worry I will mess up on some of these
Chose D, I think I (stupidly) equated for "some" and "most cases" to be the same/similar enough. Then, in the conclusion I understood it to mean that the level of harm is what is being considered. I understood D to mean the same thing - as in, D also says that since both have the same level of harm, they have the same mandate.
@lauretamrizi The stimulus never states that theft victims are harmed the same amount as bribery victims, just that this is what lawmakers believe, so it doesn't strengthen the conclusion of lawmakers considering theft harm and bribery harm to be equivalent.
If I'm super confident in my answer and the answer matched my prediction, should I still be reading the rest of the options? I feel like I'm only half reading them when I'm super confident and don't get anything out of it anyway.
Some of the harder questions on the LSAT can trick you with word choice and have two answers that both look correct except one has a single word that changes the meaning of the entire thing. I've found it can be helpful to just glance through the other choices just in case you see another that could be correct on first glance.
I got it right, I narrowed it down to A and D, however I was contemplating D. It just didn't seem as relevant to the argument, but how can I narrow out answers like this because on the LSAT, if I chose D, I don't get partial credit for saying "oh well I had it narrowed down to A or D and chose the wrong one but almost got it right."
This is the advice I got that helped: 'don't compare answers to each other, compare them to the stimulus'. I only think about one answer at a time because that's all my little brain can handle. Remember, there is never a time where there are two answers that could be right, so you must have misunderstood or misread something. Don't get frustrated at the test writers, they are probably right and probably don't care what you think.
If you're left with two or more answers after doing POE. Slow down, Re-read the stimulus, re read the question, re read your answers again, word. by. word. usually it will pop out. If it still doesn't, guess, mark it, and move on. Come back at the end if you have time.
@jacksonjjazmine292 I got down to both A and D and what led me to ultimately choosing A was thinking about the actual principle in the stimulus. To me, D didn't make sense with what they ultimately were trying to argue in the stimulus. A had given a better principle as to why they would have the same punishment. When I come down to 2 answer choices, just asking why or how does this strengthen/weaken tends to help me a lot
How do we know if an answer choice is the best without reading through all the answers? I recognized immediately that A was a great choice, but nonetheless felt compelled to read through the rest of the answers to be safe.
I am also thrown a bit on how to distinguish between which answer "best" supports or refutes an argument, with multiple competing choices.
stimulus didnt state the rule, it would be an instance of them applying it. That why its the right answer choice, if it wasnt the case that harm is proportional to the penalty, the reasoning for leveling the charge could be made another way, a way that contradicts the stimulus, something that a weakening question might ask to do.
I was gonna chose A initially but I felt that C was more supportive and the fact that A said in general just made me feel like the wording was not that convincing. Just be falling for these LSAT traps.
I was very stuck between A, D and E. Ultimately had to just guess. I had to outweigh the assumptions, but interested in skills in building skills in understanding the assumptions and finding the best and most sensible ones.
I have gotten the last few wrong when the answers are seemingly answered in the text because of previous lessons. I am confused where the line is between redundant and strengthening. Any help?
#feedback Does that mean a rule is always general? I was looking at the fact the stimulus says "In some jurisdiction" while the correct answer choice says "in general"
87 comments
I spent so long on this because A seemed too easy...
only six seconds over woooooo
@AliaAli im doing less poo at these
@AliaAli Same time!
I poe'd through this question again and I got my answer right. However, it was tricky considering that every answer seemed to switch around an idea. But I did notice some language changes:
B used "in most cases" and "believe" which sounds too forward and also too assuming. The passage does not bring up what lawmakers "believe."
C used "great harm" which is also too forward and not mentioned/irrelevant to the passage.
D is a neutral answer.
E used "effectively deterred" which is another irrelevant idea not mentioned in the passage.
I feel like they are trying to trick you to assume that the penalty for theft has been INCREASED to match that of bribery? I quickly realized my wrong assumption there and snapped out of it.
@NoaF123 All this to say, I almost chose D
I got it correct but hesitated on answer A because it started with "in general"... I feel like in several previous lessons we've been able to cross out answer choices because they say "in general" -- is that not the case here?
@LSATKilla87 I had the same thought process in a similar question that had an "in general rule". Basically, rules don't have to be airtight to strengthen an argument. Let's say if "most of the time, rule A is applied", then it would strengthen the argument that if the stimulus were also supportive of this rule, if true.
Here, I talked myself out of the wrong answer because of some of the other lessons. I thought A only addressed a subset of the problem in that it only looks at harm-to-crime ratios BUT NOT linking the two crimes mentioned in the stimulus. I think I thought the ideal answer would say something along the lines of A AND mention or affirm that theft and bribery were similar.
So, I then chose D. Because I thought it at least connected the two crimes in some way that allows you to eliminate the "puzzling feeling" like we do in RRE. Or support that the evident consideration was in fact valid?!
But as I type this out...I think I get why it was wrong and see the error of my reasoning.
But I'm nervous that I'll mix up tasks and approaches to the correct answer like this again (sigh).
I truly have been struggling since WSE now this. Feeling a bit depleted and after trying question after question getting them wrong, not really sure how to switch my approach or understanding. Any advice?
@Tswizzle25 No, literally in the same boat. I have probably gotten one answer right a day when going through this module. And every time I think I got it and feel confident, I get it wrong
@KendallFrancis05 I hear you. You're not alone! Keep pushing and drilling (what im trying to tell myself). Had to just go to sleep and wake up try again haha
@Tswizzle25 What helps me with these questions is to talk everything outloud. Humanizing the stimulus makes it more relatable for me to understand and pick the correct answer!
YAYAYA got it right :) I see major improvement on strengthening questions:) now I need to work on the weakening ones:)
I'm always torn when I see the correct answer right away. I knew A was correct and Choose to Submit Immediately without looking at the others ti save time but i worry I will mess up on some of these
Chose D, I think I (stupidly) equated for "some" and "most cases" to be the same/similar enough. Then, in the conclusion I understood it to mean that the level of harm is what is being considered. I understood D to mean the same thing - as in, D also says that since both have the same level of harm, they have the same mandate.
Got it right originally, second guessed myself in BR. Anyone else have this issue?
The law jargon in these last two question's really through me off. I got them both right in blind review though 😮💨
#help I think I am missing something in the new version - how do you do Blind Review before seeing if you got the answer right?
@gleeson.lauren we cant in this new version, I already asked it and 7sage said that we should just take it untimed
So, confirming a premise or fact in the stimulus wouldn't strengthen the argument (D)
@lauretamrizi The stimulus never states that theft victims are harmed the same amount as bribery victims, just that this is what lawmakers believe, so it doesn't strengthen the conclusion of lawmakers considering theft harm and bribery harm to be equivalent.
So here we try to figure out WHY they have the beliefs instead of providing the belief itself?
honestly that is how i took this answer as well
If I'm super confident in my answer and the answer matched my prediction, should I still be reading the rest of the options? I feel like I'm only half reading them when I'm super confident and don't get anything out of it anyway.
Some of the harder questions on the LSAT can trick you with word choice and have two answers that both look correct except one has a single word that changes the meaning of the entire thing. I've found it can be helpful to just glance through the other choices just in case you see another that could be correct on first glance.
I got it right, I narrowed it down to A and D, however I was contemplating D. It just didn't seem as relevant to the argument, but how can I narrow out answers like this because on the LSAT, if I chose D, I don't get partial credit for saying "oh well I had it narrowed down to A or D and chose the wrong one but almost got it right."
This is the advice I got that helped: 'don't compare answers to each other, compare them to the stimulus'. I only think about one answer at a time because that's all my little brain can handle. Remember, there is never a time where there are two answers that could be right, so you must have misunderstood or misread something. Don't get frustrated at the test writers, they are probably right and probably don't care what you think.
If you're left with two or more answers after doing POE. Slow down, Re-read the stimulus, re read the question, re read your answers again, word. by. word. usually it will pop out. If it still doesn't, guess, mark it, and move on. Come back at the end if you have time.
@jacksonjjazmine292 I got down to both A and D and what led me to ultimately choosing A was thinking about the actual principle in the stimulus. To me, D didn't make sense with what they ultimately were trying to argue in the stimulus. A had given a better principle as to why they would have the same punishment. When I come down to 2 answer choices, just asking why or how does this strengthen/weaken tends to help me a lot
How do we know if an answer choice is the best without reading through all the answers? I recognized immediately that A was a great choice, but nonetheless felt compelled to read through the rest of the answers to be safe.
I am also thrown a bit on how to distinguish between which answer "best" supports or refutes an argument, with multiple competing choices.
I guess you can't, given the time limits. Yet you can pick it and come back later if you're left some time by the end.
Lol, usually I am averaging between 2 to 3 minutes on most questions. But I somehow got this one right in 28 seconds.
Got it wrong because it was stated in the stimulus, so it was too easy to be correct. :(
stimulus didnt state the rule, it would be an instance of them applying it. That why its the right answer choice, if it wasnt the case that harm is proportional to the penalty, the reasoning for leveling the charge could be made another way, a way that contradicts the stimulus, something that a weakening question might ask to do.
Very cheeky cuz you made the assumption yourself since it was so obvious.
I was gonna chose A initially but I felt that C was more supportive and the fact that A said in general just made me feel like the wording was not that convincing. Just be falling for these LSAT traps.
in general is actually close to "most" while Often is close to "many"
I was very stuck between A, D and E. Ultimately had to just guess. I had to outweigh the assumptions, but interested in skills in building skills in understanding the assumptions and finding the best and most sensible ones.
I have gotten the last few wrong when the answers are seemingly answered in the text because of previous lessons. I am confused where the line is between redundant and strengthening. Any help?
im cooked
real
#feedback Does that mean a rule is always general? I was looking at the fact the stimulus says "In some jurisdiction" while the correct answer choice says "in general"