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.
I wish I could see the complete question and answer set before I get the explanation, even skipping around the video is unhelpful since they draw all over the materials and make it clear which answer is the right one. Just let me read it first!
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........
@Raba'aAbutaleb what I understood from that was that 'a' reasonable person is just one other person. if it was 'any', then that would be different but it is just one other reasonable person, so it is not nearly strong enough to contend for the correct answer
@Raba'aAbutaleb The policy has to be written in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have thoroughly read it. Although Celia didn't read thoroughly, we don't know if she's reasonable or whether other reasonable people in general would have read it thoroughly before signing. A reasonable person assuming coverage is also different from a reasonable person not thoroughly reading.
Seems like what we have to do in these questions is identify the rules. In this case D is great but missing one rule! D is missing the rule about weather a reasonable person would read the policy that is written in some way.
To choose the right answer B I went back to the stimulus and quick short handed some rules then compared B to D and it worked I chose B!
On the LSAT I would just flag this and move on, since it requires additional work at least for me to solve and get the right answer, but its better then rushing through and us missing out on a possible point!
@Raba'aAbutaleb The "reasonable person" clause only applies to the expectation that they would not have read the contract, not the expectation that it would cover hail damage.
@emmalemon@Raba'aAbutaleb You have to look at the Rule and Application separately in a sense. The Application in one case (Celia here) does not necessarily trigger the rule just because there are characteristics of the rule in Celia's situation. For example (in the case of D that you're asking about):
Part 1: Celia didn't read the insurance policy thoroughly. --> Ask yourself - why didn't she read it thoroughly? Is it because of the way the policy is written specifically (with a lot of jargon)? Or was she simply busy? Or was it because someone bought the insurance for her? We can't tell in this answer choice. So say she didn't read it because she didn't feel like it. Then the rule isn't triggered, because the policy wasn't read not because of how it's written, but because Celia didn't want to.
Part 2: Reasonable person in her position would assume the policy covers hail damage. --> Yes, but... again, that's the case if the person doesn't read the policy because of the way it's written. This answer choice (i.e. D) doesn't indicate whether that's the case, that she didn't read the policy because of the way it's written, and not for some other reason.
Now contrast that with B: it says specifically that, given the way it (i.e. policy) is written, a reasonable person would not have read Celia's insurance policy before signing it, and Celia reasonably expected the policy to cover hail damage.
#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!!!!!!
the one with https://coda.io/d/7Sage-LSATs-LR-Cheat-Sheet_di5c3yhdxZY/7Sage-LSAT-LR-Cheat-Sheet_sug4mZW-?utm_campaign=embed&utmmedium=web&utmsource=i5c3yhdxZY
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.
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.
The sufficient conditions of the rule do not require Celia herself to be a reasonable person when signing her policy.
All the rule requires is:
1. The policy is written in such a way where a reasonable person would not read the document thoroughly before signing it
(This is a general condition - nothing to do with the specific policyholder, only the language of the doc and a criterion of a generic 'reasonable person')
2. The policyholder reasonably expected their policy to cover X damage, even though it is written in the policy that it does not cover X damage - disagreement.
(This is a specific/situational condition - it is met by a fact that exists within the context of an actual policyholder and a specific damage they themselves reasonably expected to be covered by their policy, but policy says otherwise)
Not sure if I'm clearly explaining but do you see how Condition 1 is general, where it is met by a general fact, and Condition 2 is specific, where it is met by a situational fact.
So Condition 1 does not need to be met in a situational context (like you're saying about how we don't know if Celia was a reasonable person when she signed it), just as Condition 2 does not need to be met in a general context (eg. by saying that a 'reasonable person' would expect hail damage to be covered in Celia's policy)
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
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
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?
The way I came to understand the fact that triggers based on this example is that the sufficient condition of the rule is being ADDED as an additional fact to the argument (application) is what completes the application, when they say completes the application u can also think of it as strengthening the argument with another fact because it's exactly that.
u just have to make sure that the fact u are adding to complete the application is the SUFFICIENT CONDITION of the rule and FALLS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE RULE.
EX: If the domain of the rule is refereeing cats doing something and the fact in the AC states dogs doing something then IMMEDIATELY NOPE.
I recognize this example is really simple and straightforward and it won't be so on the exam but it's a good way to simply put it.
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.
55 comments
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.
I wish I could see the complete question and answer set before I get the explanation, even skipping around the video is unhelpful since they draw all over the materials and make it clear which answer is the right one. Just let me read it first!
@thr107 You can click the "show question" button under the title to see the question first and try it on your own. Many students prefer to do this.
brain hurts. time to log off for the day
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........
Spent a lot of time on notes for this lesson. Best explanations for answers are in the review section at the end.
can anyone tell me why D is wrong I dont get it.
@Raba'aAbutaleb ^^^ pls
@Raba'aAbutaleb what I understood from that was that 'a' reasonable person is just one other person. if it was 'any', then that would be different but it is just one other reasonable person, so it is not nearly strong enough to contend for the correct answer
@Raba'aAbutaleb The policy has to be written in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have thoroughly read it. Although Celia didn't read thoroughly, we don't know if she's reasonable or whether other reasonable people in general would have read it thoroughly before signing. A reasonable person assuming coverage is also different from a reasonable person not thoroughly reading.
@Raba'aAbutaleb
D is the trap! I almost chose D!
Seems like what we have to do in these questions is identify the rules. In this case D is great but missing one rule! D is missing the rule about weather a reasonable person would read the policy that is written in some way.
To choose the right answer B I went back to the stimulus and quick short handed some rules then compared B to D and it worked I chose B!
On the LSAT I would just flag this and move on, since it requires additional work at least for me to solve and get the right answer, but its better then rushing through and us missing out on a possible point!
@Raba'aAbutaleb The "reasonable person" clause only applies to the expectation that they would not have read the contract, not the expectation that it would cover hail damage.
@emmalemon @Raba'aAbutaleb You have to look at the Rule and Application separately in a sense. The Application in one case (Celia here) does not necessarily trigger the rule just because there are characteristics of the rule in Celia's situation. For example (in the case of D that you're asking about):
Part 1: Celia didn't read the insurance policy thoroughly. --> Ask yourself - why didn't she read it thoroughly? Is it because of the way the policy is written specifically (with a lot of jargon)? Or was she simply busy? Or was it because someone bought the insurance for her? We can't tell in this answer choice. So say she didn't read it because she didn't feel like it. Then the rule isn't triggered, because the policy wasn't read not because of how it's written, but because Celia didn't want to.
Part 2: Reasonable person in her position would assume the policy covers hail damage. --> Yes, but... again, that's the case if the person doesn't read the policy because of the way it's written. This answer choice (i.e. D) doesn't indicate whether that's the case, that she didn't read the policy because of the way it's written, and not for some other reason.
Now contrast that with B: it says specifically that, given the way it (i.e. policy) is written, a reasonable person would not have read Celia's insurance policy before signing it, and Celia reasonably expected the policy to cover hail damage.
@Raba'aAbutaleb From my understanding B is correct and not D because D fails to mention the idea of written in such a way
*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!!!!!!
the one with https://coda.io/d/7Sage-LSATs-LR-Cheat-Sheet_di5c3yhdxZY/7Sage-LSAT-LR-Cheat-Sheet_sug4mZW-?utm_campaign=embed&utmmedium=web&utmsource=i5c3yhdxZY
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.
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.
We don't know that she is a reasonable person.
However, it's reasonable to assume that she is, unless the stimulus explicitly says otherwise.
The sufficient conditions of the rule do not require Celia herself to be a reasonable person when signing her policy.
All the rule requires is:
1. The policy is written in such a way where a reasonable person would not read the document thoroughly before signing it
(This is a general condition - nothing to do with the specific policyholder, only the language of the doc and a criterion of a generic 'reasonable person')
2. The policyholder reasonably expected their policy to cover X damage, even though it is written in the policy that it does not cover X damage - disagreement.
(This is a specific/situational condition - it is met by a fact that exists within the context of an actual policyholder and a specific damage they themselves reasonably expected to be covered by their policy, but policy says otherwise)
Not sure if I'm clearly explaining but do you see how Condition 1 is general, where it is met by a general fact, and Condition 2 is specific, where it is met by a situational fact.
So Condition 1 does not need to be met in a situational context (like you're saying about how we don't know if Celia was a reasonable person when she signed it), just as Condition 2 does not need to be met in a general context (eg. by saying that a 'reasonable person' would expect hail damage to be covered in Celia's policy)
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.
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
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
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
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...
3 star
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
loveeee gojo! just finished s2 of jjk a few days ago lmaoo
Strong return incoming, I'm not delusional
Gojo >
4 chapters left... I believe
Next one for sure, the voices told me
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?
The way I came to understand the fact that triggers based on this example is that the sufficient condition of the rule is being ADDED as an additional fact to the argument (application) is what completes the application, when they say completes the application u can also think of it as strengthening the argument with another fact because it's exactly that.
u just have to make sure that the fact u are adding to complete the application is the SUFFICIENT CONDITION of the rule and FALLS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE RULE.
EX: If the domain of the rule is refereeing cats doing something and the fact in the AC states dogs doing something then IMMEDIATELY NOPE.
I recognize this example is really simple and straightforward and it won't be so on the exam but it's a good way to simply put it.
hope this helped
this question was a jump scare
after seeing the answer choices I feel slightly better...
A reasonable person would not take the LSAT.
lol I was thinking something similar after reading this question lol
whoever wrote this question is a mean person.
fr though