With this types of questions I find it very helpful to write down a list of the things the rule mentions for it to be applied. In this case the list for receiving coverage is:
Reasonable Person Read - X
Expectations of the policyholder exist - O
Says it will cover that expectation - X
Celia's case is as follows in the stimulus:
Reasonable Person Read - ?
Expectations of the policyholder exist - ?
Says it will cover that expectation - X
Because I am missing the first two, I need an answer that gives them which is B.
A: Cool, Celia is a reasonable person...but do we know if she read the document or not? Nope, we don't know so therefore A is not correct
C: Great, we have the 1 here but I am missing number 2
D: It doesn't give us 1 because we don't know if Celia is a reasonable person here, and we also don't know if she had expectations or not
E: Amazing, it gives us 1...but not number 2 so can't use it.
Mr. Lin ,your explanation just confused me more, especially, when you hide all answers on purposes and show the right answer first, it gives me the false illustration…oh my brain hurts lol…
I dislike how long the answer choices are with these style of questions. They remind me of Parallel Reasoning Qs but with the reasoning told to us upfront. Oh well........
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
To be honest with you, I almost never use Lawgic when I'm doing actual practice questions. I think it slows me down. Only use what is most helpful to you, because at the end of the day it's not like we're being asked to show our work like on a calc test! lol
I feel like I wish there was a different example used to introduce us to the PSAa because the language in this was very confusing. Additionally, I think the explanation was a bit too much and lost me. It might be better to read through this lesson instead.
One thing that stumped was the fact that the correct answer never said Celia was a reasonable person.... I think I misread the sufficient condition in the principle. I took it be about being a reasonable person, but it's actually about how the policy is written... did anyone else feel like this? am I correct in this explanation?
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?
I thought of "legal precedence" as it is used in the stimulus as strictly part of the rule's consequence/conclusion. If [sufficient condition 1] and [sufficient condition 2] are met, then [consequence/decision/conclusion] is true - which is that the expectations of policyholder should take legal precedence over language of policy.
The actual sufficient conditions of the rule have nothing to do with legal precedence, all that matters about it is that that is the procedure the conclusion of the rule lays out if the sufficient conditions are met.
So an answer choice, since it is there to fill in a missing premise/fact in the application of the rule, should not have to include anything about legal precedence since it serves to fulfill a sufficient condition of the rule, not anything regarding the consequence/conclusion/decision.
The difference between B and D is that D states that a reasonable person would have expected the policy to cover the damage, but in the original Principle, it states that the reasonable expectations of the policyholder concerning the policy's coverage takes legal precedence. The policyholder in the Application is Celia, so the answer choice must be directly concerned with what she, as the policyholder, expected (given that the expectation is reasonable), and not just any reasonable person in general.
D also does not address Celia's decision not to read the policy thoroughly, when the triggering condition required the policy to be written a certain way where a reasonable person wouldn't read it, which B does satisfy
68 comments
A reasonable person would not take the LSAT.
lol I was thinking something similar after reading this question lol
everytime i think it can't get worse, it does
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.
omg same! I thought I was the only one, sometimes I stop listening and come straigh to comments after I get a question right.
when are you taking the LSAT and how long have you been studying for?
I felt like I was reading the same answers 5 times ahahah
Given the description the way the insurance policy was written, I reasonably believe that it was written by (an) LSAT RC writer(s).
whoever wrote this question is a mean person.
fr though
With this types of questions I find it very helpful to write down a list of the things the rule mentions for it to be applied. In this case the list for receiving coverage is:
Reasonable Person Read - X
Expectations of the policyholder exist - O
Says it will cover that expectation - X
Celia's case is as follows in the stimulus:
Reasonable Person Read - ?
Expectations of the policyholder exist - ?
Says it will cover that expectation - X
Because I am missing the first two, I need an answer that gives them which is B.
A: Cool, Celia is a reasonable person...but do we know if she read the document or not? Nope, we don't know so therefore A is not correct
C: Great, we have the 1 here but I am missing number 2
D: It doesn't give us 1 because we don't know if Celia is a reasonable person here, and we also don't know if she had expectations or not
E: Amazing, it gives us 1...but not number 2 so can't use it.
@juvargasc this actually helps a lot
@juvargasc very helpful! thank you :)
@juvargasc thank you so much, this helps me a tonn!!
brain hurts. time to log off for the day
Is it just me or do the video explanations do too much and confuse me more?
@Reddrum0911 Agree
@Reddrum0911 Most definitely
@Reddrum0911 I agree, I honestly do not think he explains it well at all.
I try and read his typed out lessons in Gojos voice and it starts to kinda make sense ngl
Strong return incoming, I'm not delusional
loveeee gojo! just finished s2 of jjk a few days ago lmaoo
Gojo >
4 chapters left... I believe
Next one for sure, the voices told me
Mr. Lin ,your explanation just confused me more, especially, when you hide all answers on purposes and show the right answer first, it gives me the false illustration…oh my brain hurts lol…
Spent a lot of time on notes for this lesson. Best explanations for answers are in the review section at the end.
I dislike how long the answer choices are with these style of questions. They remind me of Parallel Reasoning Qs but with the reasoning told to us upfront. Oh well........
What's the question difficulty on this one lol...
3 star
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 if I get the question right without having to use lawgic?
To be honest with you, I almost never use Lawgic when I'm doing actual practice questions. I think it slows me down. Only use what is most helpful to you, because at the end of the day it's not like we're being asked to show our work like on a calc test! lol
I feel like I wish there was a different example used to introduce us to the PSAa because the language in this was very confusing. Additionally, I think the explanation was a bit too much and lost me. It might be better to read through this lesson instead.
One thing that stumped was the fact that the correct answer never said Celia was a reasonable person.... I think I misread the sufficient condition in the principle. I took it be about being a reasonable person, but it's actually about how the policy is written... did anyone else feel like this? am I correct in this explanation?
@MayaVM Option A baited me....
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?
this question was a jump scare
after seeing the answer choices I feel slightly better...
Being able to break the rule down in this particular way is golden.
*Asterisk
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?
I thought of "legal precedence" as it is used in the stimulus as strictly part of the rule's consequence/conclusion. If [sufficient condition 1] and [sufficient condition 2] are met, then [consequence/decision/conclusion] is true - which is that the expectations of policyholder should take legal precedence over language of policy.
The actual sufficient conditions of the rule have nothing to do with legal precedence, all that matters about it is that that is the procedure the conclusion of the rule lays out if the sufficient conditions are met.
So an answer choice, since it is there to fill in a missing premise/fact in the application of the rule, should not have to include anything about legal precedence since it serves to fulfill a sufficient condition of the rule, not anything regarding the consequence/conclusion/decision.
Wait why is it B and not D?
The difference between B and D is that D states that a reasonable person would have expected the policy to cover the damage, but in the original Principle, it states that the reasonable expectations of the policyholder concerning the policy's coverage takes legal precedence. The policyholder in the Application is Celia, so the answer choice must be directly concerned with what she, as the policyholder, expected (given that the expectation is reasonable), and not just any reasonable person in general.
D also does not address Celia's decision not to read the policy thoroughly, when the triggering condition required the policy to be written a certain way where a reasonable person wouldn't read it, which B does satisfy