#feedback The explanations for the PSA series are super confusing. JY goes along a very prolonged explanation style that isn't realistic for a timed question. Plus, I feel like his explanations come from the clear perspective of a person who knows the answer in such a way that a person who hasn't seen the question will be very confused. Just like the comment above me says.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially about where you talked about working backwards to justify the right answer (vs picking the right answer blindly as you would on a test). We spend a lot of time thinking about hypotheticals and veering off topic in explanation videos. It would be helpful to learn what to eliminate and what to keep an eye on in the stimulus as we go through the answer choices, since there's a lot of fluff that LSAC uses to distract us and get us to pick the wrong answer.
I think the yap was exactly where it needed to be. The explanation in the beginning, before even getting to the response in the stimulus, was incredibly helpful. It's good to be reminded that these questions we've been getting shouldn't lull us into a false sense of security because the answers have overshot the terms of sufficiency to answer the question stem. To know there are and will be answers that will also undershoot but also be correct in this section is extremely helpful. On top of that, J.Y. going fully through an example was more than helpful.
I think the stimulus explanation is super confusing in the video because we didn't read (at least in the video) over the second persons text before evaluating the first persons text. So when JY was talking about curators v founders and whether something was appropriate or not, I had no clue what he was talking about for like 5 minutes because the second part of the text had been clipped away from the video, and so it sounded like these terms were coming from thin air. Maybe add something to this lesson telling students to pause and read the entire stimulus before going into the eval of the first speaker?
I agree! the first part of the stimulus - the conclusion is "y is appropriate" this was cleared up after seeing the second half. from first glance, it is very confusing. We should keep both parts of the stimulus
#feedback This may be included in lessons later one; however, I think it would be beneficial to give a real-time analysis of how someone would solve this problem while taking the test. I know that with practice, we will become faster at answering these questions-- but using the logic in these videos is quite time-consuming and will not be efficient while taking the test. This could maybe be involved in the "review" lesson?
will answer choices always match the positive or negative language in the stimulus? or will it ever be the contrapositive? (C), (B), and (E). Can we always cross these out immediately?
In my experience, there have been contrapositives in every section, and they are usually the harder ranked questions. Not impossible that it could be different for this section though
Guys I highly recommend reading this instead of watching the passage!! It forces your brain to do the understanding/work. I refer to the vids only when my brain is really burned out or when I need to try and reinforce the lesson
Did this video need to be 17 mins long? I get understanding why wrong answers are wrong, but sometimes I feel like JY goes too deep into explaining that.
@Alondra_Sanchez this!! i was so confused watching the video even though i got the question confidently right when i looked at quick view. i'd hate to skip videos in case i miss something, but i feel like they make me so much more confused, especially when i got the question right already.
This explanation video makes it so much more difficult to understand this problem. Bro is just yapping and yapping. He explains this question in the most overinvolved and convoluted way. Maybe there was a better problem to use as an example of the shit you're trying to teach in this lesson. The question was way easier to understand by just reading it directly on its own instead of watching this video.
not to be that person, but for a curriculum that's constantly telling us "grammar is key," you think it would know the difference between 'its curators' and 'it's curators'...
negative rules in answers signal wrong answers because they give us nothing that can explain what rule applies to the premises and conclusion to make the reasoning justified.
#help Are purpose and intention really such divorced concepts? At what point are we allowed to just assume that synonyms are synonymous? Esepcially for PSAs (and MSSs for that matter) in which the focus is not on logical completeness, it seems extremely forced to draw a distinction between these two concept. In general, what is the line of synonyms being able to be treated as the same?
Question we are almost always supposed to believe that the stimulus are true as we're not looking for that. But how are we supposed to figure that this is an opinion when we both arguees are saying 2 different statements?
77 comments
i dont know if its the lack of sleep, but this video made me very very angry
me too
real
#feedback The explanations for the PSA series are super confusing. JY goes along a very prolonged explanation style that isn't realistic for a timed question. Plus, I feel like his explanations come from the clear perspective of a person who knows the answer in such a way that a person who hasn't seen the question will be very confused. Just like the comment above me says.
I agree wholeheartedly, especially about where you talked about working backwards to justify the right answer (vs picking the right answer blindly as you would on a test). We spend a lot of time thinking about hypotheticals and veering off topic in explanation videos. It would be helpful to learn what to eliminate and what to keep an eye on in the stimulus as we go through the answer choices, since there's a lot of fluff that LSAC uses to distract us and get us to pick the wrong answer.
#feedback more concise explanations - yap meter is too high
I think the yap was exactly where it needed to be. The explanation in the beginning, before even getting to the response in the stimulus, was incredibly helpful. It's good to be reminded that these questions we've been getting shouldn't lull us into a false sense of security because the answers have overshot the terms of sufficiency to answer the question stem. To know there are and will be answers that will also undershoot but also be correct in this section is extremely helpful. On top of that, J.Y. going fully through an example was more than helpful.
#feedback
I think the stimulus explanation is super confusing in the video because we didn't read (at least in the video) over the second persons text before evaluating the first persons text. So when JY was talking about curators v founders and whether something was appropriate or not, I had no clue what he was talking about for like 5 minutes because the second part of the text had been clipped away from the video, and so it sounded like these terms were coming from thin air. Maybe add something to this lesson telling students to pause and read the entire stimulus before going into the eval of the first speaker?
I agree! the first part of the stimulus - the conclusion is "y is appropriate" this was cleared up after seeing the second half. from first glance, it is very confusing. We should keep both parts of the stimulus
I also agree, it was much easier to just go back and read the entire stimulus and then lool at the answer choices
I agree as well, I was so lost!
#feedback This may be included in lessons later one; however, I think it would be beneficial to give a real-time analysis of how someone would solve this problem while taking the test. I know that with practice, we will become faster at answering these questions-- but using the logic in these videos is quite time-consuming and will not be efficient while taking the test. This could maybe be involved in the "review" lesson?
Agreed
will answer choices always match the positive or negative language in the stimulus? or will it ever be the contrapositive? (C), (B), and (E). Can we always cross these out immediately?
In my experience, there have been contrapositives in every section, and they are usually the harder ranked questions. Not impossible that it could be different for this section though
I have the same question
#help I am wondering this as well
this one seems a lot harder than the last few because the answers did not include every aspect of the stimulus
Guys I highly recommend reading this instead of watching the passage!! It forces your brain to do the understanding/work. I refer to the vids only when my brain is really burned out or when I need to try and reinforce the lesson
Did this video need to be 17 mins long? I get understanding why wrong answers are wrong, but sometimes I feel like JY goes too deep into explaining that.
You're allowed to skip it...
In my experience, it's been helpful to skip around (or skip entirely) videos that include concepts I already understand.
is it just me or is all the talking so unnecessary like, actually makes it so much more confusing than it has to be????
@Alondra_Sanchez this!! i was so confused watching the video even though i got the question confidently right when i looked at quick view. i'd hate to skip videos in case i miss something, but i feel like they make me so much more confused, especially when i got the question right already.
@Alondra_Sanchez yap city on this one
This video was not it.
This explanation video makes it so much more difficult to understand this problem. Bro is just yapping and yapping. He explains this question in the most overinvolved and convoluted way. Maybe there was a better problem to use as an example of the shit you're trying to teach in this lesson. The question was way easier to understand by just reading it directly on its own instead of watching this video.
@ActuallyJozu Damn, I was harsh af here... my apologies
@ActuallyJozu I totally agree. Very frustrating
swears, this explanation boggles my mind
#feedback this explanation is lowkey very convoluted and doesn't translate well to doing this question in 1-2 minutes on a real test
I watched like maybe 4 min, the explanation was so boring, i paused the explanation and tried to do the question on my own, and got it right.
not to be that person, but for a curriculum that's constantly telling us "grammar is key," you think it would know the difference between 'its curators' and 'it's curators'...
I second this.
This is your sign to use your complementary option of skipping this video.
@IslamUmarov When the goat speaks i listen #roadto1000
@CarlosHernandez03 SUUUUIIII 180
JY is trippin in this question, definitely felt more confused after watching the vid, the reading part made morse sense imo.
blah blah proper name back story, get to the POINT
Right - this should NOT take 17 minutes to explain.
Damn, Simpson was so vile to Vanderburg
I guess bro
negative rules in answers signal wrong answers because they give us nothing that can explain what rule applies to the premises and conclusion to make the reasoning justified.
#help Are purpose and intention really such divorced concepts? At what point are we allowed to just assume that synonyms are synonymous? Esepcially for PSAs (and MSSs for that matter) in which the focus is not on logical completeness, it seems extremely forced to draw a distinction between these two concept. In general, what is the line of synonyms being able to be treated as the same?
Question we are almost always supposed to believe that the stimulus are true as we're not looking for that. But how are we supposed to figure that this is an opinion when we both arguees are saying 2 different statements?
Is the thing about negative rules applicable to all of these valid principle questions or just this one