#feedback Wow!!!! I never find typos!!!! That's a first, must be really paying attention! On the LR cheat cheat, you say "had" instead of hard twice when talking about predicting. Anywho, this cheat cheat is helping me outline my notes the week of the test- this program is the best!!!!!!
I got this right based on POE but I kept thinking the right answer would include something like "there has been legal precedence where hail damage was covered by the insurance policy"-- does legal precedence just not matter or if there was an answer choice that said something about it, could it have been better than B?
Okay, so from the application in the stimulus, we know Celia signed it.
From B, we know that a reasonable person wouldn't have read it thoroughly before signing, and that Celia's expectations were reasonable.
However, the main thing that bugged me about B is how do we know that Celia was a reasonable person when signing it? Like just because B says a reasonable person wouldn't have read it thoroughly before signing it, how do we know that Celia was one of these people other than that she didn't read it before signing it and had a reasonable expectation?
If reasonable people can make unreasonable expectations, is it not fair to assume that unreasonable people can at times have reasonable expectations?
I got it right from POE but still stuck on how much I hate B.
doing the question and choosing my answer before coming back to this video is helping a bunch! i was initially stuck between (b) and (d) but i realized that b explicitly stated that a reasonable person would not have read through celia's insurance policy given the way it was written answer choice d didn't make any mention for why celia didn't thoroughly read through her insurance policy. for all we know she coulda been lazy about it and the policy was actually written in simple enough language for a reasonable person. also, answer choice (b) mentioned celia's expectations of her policy cover hail damage while answer choice (d) just mentioned that the reasonable person in her possible would assume that hail damage is covered
The way I was thinking about (D) was similar but a little different to this explanation.
The second part of the sentence ("a reasonable person in her position would have assumed...") is about a hypothetical reasonable person who did not read the contract thoroughly, i.e. is "in Cecilia's position." That's essentially just saying "If a reasonable person did NOT read the contract thoroughly, then they would assume..." but of course we have no way of knowing if the contract was written in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't actually read it thoroughly. All we know is what would happen if they didn't read it thoroughly, but that's not really helpful or relevant because it may very well be that the contract was written in such a way that every reasonable person would read it thoroughly.
So, to justify the application, do all the sufficient conditions in the rule need to be triggered or will there be choices where only some are triggered yet it's the best one out of the 5?
Given the description the way the insurance policy was written, I reasonably believe that it was written by (an) LSAT RC writer(s).
48
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!
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.
47 comments
can anyone tell me why D is wrong I dont get it.
*Asterisk
#feedback Wow!!!! I never find typos!!!! That's a first, must be really paying attention! On the LR cheat cheat, you say "had" instead of hard twice when talking about predicting. Anywho, this cheat cheat is helping me outline my notes the week of the test- this program is the best!!!!!!
I got this right based on POE but I kept thinking the right answer would include something like "there has been legal precedence where hail damage was covered by the insurance policy"-- does legal precedence just not matter or if there was an answer choice that said something about it, could it have been better than B?
Okay, so from the application in the stimulus, we know Celia signed it.
From B, we know that a reasonable person wouldn't have read it thoroughly before signing, and that Celia's expectations were reasonable.
However, the main thing that bugged me about B is how do we know that Celia was a reasonable person when signing it? Like just because B says a reasonable person wouldn't have read it thoroughly before signing it, how do we know that Celia was one of these people other than that she didn't read it before signing it and had a reasonable expectation?
If reasonable people can make unreasonable expectations, is it not fair to assume that unreasonable people can at times have reasonable expectations?
I got it right from POE but still stuck on how much I hate B.
I want to throw my head against the wall. I got all the PSAr questions wrong. And I finally got this one right.
this whole stimulus and argument are pretty weak, right?
Even when I get a problem correct, I come scroll through the comments for a good laugh and some encouragement. The struggle is so relatable.
I felt like I was reading the same answers 5 times ahahah
Wait why is it B and not D?
What if I get the question right without having to use lawgic?
doing the question and choosing my answer before coming back to this video is helping a bunch! i was initially stuck between (b) and (d) but i realized that b explicitly stated that a reasonable person would not have read through celia's insurance policy given the way it was written answer choice d didn't make any mention for why celia didn't thoroughly read through her insurance policy. for all we know she coulda been lazy about it and the policy was actually written in simple enough language for a reasonable person. also, answer choice (b) mentioned celia's expectations of her policy cover hail damage while answer choice (d) just mentioned that the reasonable person in her possible would assume that hail damage is covered
What's the question difficulty on this one lol...
everytime i think it can't get worse, it does
The way I was thinking about (D) was similar but a little different to this explanation.
The second part of the sentence ("a reasonable person in her position would have assumed...") is about a hypothetical reasonable person who did not read the contract thoroughly, i.e. is "in Cecilia's position." That's essentially just saying "If a reasonable person did NOT read the contract thoroughly, then they would assume..." but of course we have no way of knowing if the contract was written in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't actually read it thoroughly. All we know is what would happen if they didn't read it thoroughly, but that's not really helpful or relevant because it may very well be that the contract was written in such a way that every reasonable person would read it thoroughly.
I try and read his typed out lessons in Gojos voice and it starts to kinda make sense ngl
So, to justify the application, do all the sufficient conditions in the rule need to be triggered or will there be choices where only some are triggered yet it's the best one out of the 5?
this question was a jump scare
A reasonable person would not take the LSAT.
whoever wrote this question is a mean person.
Is there a video where the "Domain" Approach is explained more in depth?
Given the description the way the insurance policy was written, I reasonably believe that it was written by (an) LSAT RC writer(s).