I focused on the fact that he committed scientific fraud but they could not prove academic fraud. Therefore, if they still revoked his PhD, we cannot say anything about academic fraud being the reason. Obtaining his PhD doesn't have anything to do with the scientific fraud he committed.
I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.
I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.
So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.
Wohoo I go this right!! But maybe I just got lucky? the reason why is because I READ IT VERY CAREFULLY. A and D are worded almost the exact same but with one difference-- "academic vs "scientific" and the stimulus only speaks about scientific fraud specifically....
For anyone who is confused about why D is right, I overlooked the fact that he committed fraud at WORK, which is separate from when he completed his PhD. AC D says anyone who is found to commit fraud will have their PhD revoked, it doesn’t matter when they committed it. I think a lot of us didn’t realize although he was cleared for not committing fraud in his thesis, he still committed fraud at work which is why his PhD was revoked.
when I clicked on "show question," the page just kept refreshing without actually pulling up the question. My discussion and bookmark tab worked but not the show question tab. I exited out and reopened the page and it still did not work.
I always try the question on the lessons before watching the lesson. I feel very secure in my understanding of why the correct answer is D before watching the lesson. Should I still watch the whole video...? What are others doing?
#feedback for these video lessons it would be amazing if we could see all answer choices before the correct one is revealed first, it would allow for students to attempt to apply the lessons in real time and understand their mistakes as they do so with the video
so is this part of the lesson using the justify the conclusion method. this method states (from a different LSAT study book) that you should link new elements in the premises with new elements in the conclusion. Are we doing the same thing here?
I do not understand why we ignore the 3rd premise, it seems pretty important to me. As he stated, why should he get punished for something he did not do? How do I know when in the future to pick and choose which premises of which questions to ignore?
I can't stress enough how well this V2 version is formatted compared to V1. Don't get me wrong, V1 does a really good job. But V2 perfectly organized in terms of how is supposed to be taught. By following the LR section in order, I have understood the lessons 10x better, and has facilitated my understanding of different LR questions Stems, since they are all connected in some degree.
41
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.
43 comments
I focused on the fact that he committed scientific fraud but they could not prove academic fraud. Therefore, if they still revoked his PhD, we cannot say anything about academic fraud being the reason. Obtaining his PhD doesn't have anything to do with the scientific fraud he committed.
I chose D but would not articulate my reasoning for picking it in the same way the video does.
I paid attention to the fact that if UW revoked Meyer's PHD even though he didn't falsify data towards his PHD, it still matters that he committed scientific fraud at all.
So, the rule must state that anyone who is a PhD from UW cannot commit scientific fraud---not just at the school (which answer A is giving the narrower range of), but in the field as a whole.
Wohoo I go this right!! But maybe I just got lucky? the reason why is because I READ IT VERY CAREFULLY. A and D are worded almost the exact same but with one difference-- "academic vs "scientific" and the stimulus only speaks about scientific fraud specifically....
I wish J.Y would use harder questions for this, but I understand there are certain barriers prohibiting him from it. ugh
For anyone who is confused about why D is right, I overlooked the fact that he committed fraud at WORK, which is separate from when he completed his PhD. AC D says anyone who is found to commit fraud will have their PhD revoked, it doesn’t matter when they committed it. I think a lot of us didn’t realize although he was cleared for not committing fraud in his thesis, he still committed fraud at work which is why his PhD was revoked.
Whats the difference between PSA and RRE?
#Help
when I clicked on "show question," the page just kept refreshing without actually pulling up the question. My discussion and bookmark tab worked but not the show question tab. I exited out and reopened the page and it still did not work.
No more Celtics basketball until October and no Jayson Tatum until sometime in 2026... it's really over
Is anyone else confused the difference between answer A and D they both seem similar and to be the right answer
I always try the question on the lessons before watching the lesson. I feel very secure in my understanding of why the correct answer is D before watching the lesson. Should I still watch the whole video...? What are others doing?
How was the University able to validate this claim when, in the following line, it says that they found no evidence of this? Am I going insane?
Can someone explain to me why "finding no evidence he had [commit sci fraud]" doesnt cancel out his charge / phd removal?
See. I got this one wrong because I assumed Meyer was definitely an alien.
#feedback why did the 'Lets Review' sections disappear in the last couple lessons?
This is a "most justified" question, but am I right in assuming the answer would be correct even if we delete the "most"???
#feedback for these video lessons it would be amazing if we could see all answer choices before the correct one is revealed first, it would allow for students to attempt to apply the lessons in real time and understand their mistakes as they do so with the video
I am clicking next on this lesson and it brings me to a 404 page
this video was easily the best explanation video on this platform
so is this part of the lesson using the justify the conclusion method. this method states (from a different LSAT study book) that you should link new elements in the premises with new elements in the conclusion. Are we doing the same thing here?
I do not understand why we ignore the 3rd premise, it seems pretty important to me. As he stated, why should he get punished for something he did not do? How do I know when in the future to pick and choose which premises of which questions to ignore?
I can't stress enough how well this V2 version is formatted compared to V1. Don't get me wrong, V1 does a really good job. But V2 perfectly organized in terms of how is supposed to be taught. By following the LR section in order, I have understood the lessons 10x better, and has facilitated my understanding of different LR questions Stems, since they are all connected in some degree.