Is anyone else feeling like the separation of these question types at this point is doing a little more harm than good? I over thought this one thinking about how "differently" should be approaching this question from a flaw question...
Lets pretend B said all barn owls. Doesn't this rely on the idea that barn owls can all see to similar extents? if they are given glasses that mess with their vision then they have to all have similar vision? I felt like choice A relied on the assumption in B, they have to be able to see if their vision is to be distorted?
My one qualm with this question was answer choice E. The video discounted this choice fairly quickly but I think it had some legs. The fact that the movement was not corrected does not show you anything conclusive about whether the visual system was actually utilized or not, which is why I think E could be possible. I had to work with the actual experiment this prompt is about in a class, so maybe I am just infusing too much of my own prior experience into an otherwise "more simple" question.
PS in the actual experiment the vision corrected back but sound did not smh
I feel like I intuitively understand these questions. I will read the correct AC and then choose it immediately once I read it. Ik this is overconfidence, but why is it that some questions come easier to others because I FLOPPED on SA questions but my confidence is back.
So I actually decided to omit selecting an answer choice in order to do some accuracy conditioning. I was able to cross everything besides (A) and (E) pretty easily. In BR I gathered that focusing on grammar in the stimulus could help clarify why the right answer is the right answer. But even in BR, I couldn't shake the sense that there was something missing in the stimulus which similarly rendered all of the wrong answer choices to be wrong. I crossed out (C) pretty easily in my attempt, but in BR (C) did make me wonder whether the stimulus was easier to interpret correctly if test takers we able to make certain inferences and assumptions about sensory faculties based on their own familiarity with those sensory faculties. If I am actually reading the stimulus correctly now, the scientists hypothesize that the owls continued to "act as if they misjudged" (presumably visually misjudged?)—because they weren't visually judging anything at all (cf. with judging via "[hearing] scheme"). This is good and well for understanding why (A) is right and (E) isn't. I basically didn't cross (E) because I wasn't sure if the conclusion was actually just radically divorced from anything which could possibly be supported from the premises. (B) through (D) was pretty easy for me to cross out in my attempt, but in BR I did begin to wonder about if and why the same might not be true for other test takers...
2
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.
73 comments
This reminds me of when I used to cross my eyes and everyone would say they'll get stuck like that.
Is anyone else feeling like the separation of these question types at this point is doing a little more harm than good? I over thought this one thinking about how "differently" should be approaching this question from a flaw question...
Lets pretend B said all barn owls. Doesn't this rely on the idea that barn owls can all see to similar extents? if they are given glasses that mess with their vision then they have to all have similar vision? I felt like choice A relied on the assumption in B, they have to be able to see if their vision is to be distorted?
Lmao, I'm glad there's a lot of comments agreeing with me about how fucked up this experiment sounds.
I found this easier than the previous ones. I treated it like a weaken question. Lol I thought J.Y. was was trying to trick us
didn't catch b says ALL owls but thankfully even if it says all barn owls is not correct !
poor animals
my worst enemy is reading the answer choices incorrectly.
the rare animal-cruelty LSAT question type...
why is this experiment lowkey evil
My one qualm with this question was answer choice E. The video discounted this choice fairly quickly but I think it had some legs. The fact that the movement was not corrected does not show you anything conclusive about whether the visual system was actually utilized or not, which is why I think E could be possible. I had to work with the actual experiment this prompt is about in a class, so maybe I am just infusing too much of my own prior experience into an otherwise "more simple" question.
PS in the actual experiment the vision corrected back but sound did not smh
This argument is a real hoot.
I don't think my statistics professor would have approved of this experiment.
Average Stanford ethics experiment
This is one cruel experiment
I only got this right because the study made me upset. How evil! haha. I guess attacking arguments really does work.
I was between A and E and decided wrongly sighs*
I feel like I intuitively understand these questions. I will read the correct AC and then choose it immediately once I read it. Ik this is overconfidence, but why is it that some questions come easier to others because I FLOPPED on SA questions but my confidence is back.
wanted to pick B based on the fact that the experiment part could be messed up but went back to A in BR
im so mad for these owls...
Fuck these hypothetical scientists
spent 4 minutes on a 2 star question <3
i got this wrong because i thought the right answer was almost too obvious and perfect lol
Why did this make me sad for the hypothetical owls
So I actually decided to omit selecting an answer choice in order to do some accuracy conditioning. I was able to cross everything besides (A) and (E) pretty easily. In BR I gathered that focusing on grammar in the stimulus could help clarify why the right answer is the right answer. But even in BR, I couldn't shake the sense that there was something missing in the stimulus which similarly rendered all of the wrong answer choices to be wrong. I crossed out (C) pretty easily in my attempt, but in BR (C) did make me wonder whether the stimulus was easier to interpret correctly if test takers we able to make certain inferences and assumptions about sensory faculties based on their own familiarity with those sensory faculties. If I am actually reading the stimulus correctly now, the scientists hypothesize that the owls continued to "act as if they misjudged" (presumably visually misjudged?)—because they weren't visually judging anything at all (cf. with judging via "[hearing] scheme"). This is good and well for understanding why (A) is right and (E) isn't. I basically didn't cross (E) because I wasn't sure if the conclusion was actually just radically divorced from anything which could possibly be supported from the premises. (B) through (D) was pretty easy for me to cross out in my attempt, but in BR I did begin to wonder about if and why the same might not be true for other test takers...