The happiness you feel when you get the question right with 30 seconds to spare only to find out it’s a lvl 5 difficult and JY says it’s a tough question. I’m on a high right now guys
I just read the answer choices and picked the answer that made the most sense intuitively. If I am getting questions right this way, is it necessary to do a deep dive?
I'm going through the same thing! It may be helpful to just know why you got it right and why the other ones are wrong so you can find some patterns and (hopefully) be able to use them in other questions in which answers may not intuitively come to you, if that makes sense. Hope this is helpful! :)
If I'm able to answer intuitively I do BUT I go back in during blind review and really think about why an answer is right and why the others are wrong. I do this so I'm really drilling in the skills we're learning. I fear only relying on being able to do it intuitively without a true understanding of what makes something right vs wrong will hurt me down the road.
So the trick with this one is a sampling bias. We know from the article that, quantity wise, there are more articles written on small studies than large, and the person assumes this is because those have more dramatic headlines.
The problem is that we don't know if this is reasoning is accurate because there might just be MORE small studies done overall. The papers might even report on a higher percentage of large studies, but they might just be infrequent compared to small studies. If what I just described is the case, large studies could be just as likely to have dramatic headlines, rendering the claim false.
I love when JY is like "I have no idea why this answer is so popular only an IDIOT and a FOOL would select it" thank you, sir, timing pressure is real unfortunately
I'm close to giving up lol. I got this right but the last couple of 1-star questions wrong. Where the hell am I going wrong? sooooooo frustrating. I was even able to say the answer choice before finding it. Am I able to get some feedback on why this may be happening? Why are the "easier" questions more difficult to understand and thus answer?
So as as far as this question goes, my sense is the correct answer was comparatively less ideal. I also think the "bait" answer choice was pretty strong bait—stronger bait than what the 7sage question difficulty would indicate in my honest opinion. I got this one right, but like, by no means did I get this right in a timely manner. I had every answer choice crossed out. And the correct answer here was not ideal. But once it clicked why the correct answer choice was right, I knew it was the right one. I know at the beginning of this unit we were told that often the "fails to consider the possibility" variety wrong answer choices are wrong because the alternative possibility in the answer choice doesn't actually pertain to the argument or its support structure. In the case of this question however, it absolutely did. If small observational studies are just more frequent than large randomized studies, this would redirect the explanatory direction of support entirely—it blasts the argument wide open, basically. Now having said all of this, I will say that I had a hard time trying to translate this stimulus. I found myself not even translating the argument at all. And while I was still able to get to the right answer, it definitely took me a little bit of time. If anyone actually produced a translation of the stimulus which actually helped get to the right answer in PoE I would be curious to see it.
I find that question level is mostly an indicator of how difficult/abstract the phrasing in the answers is relative to the stimulus. The LSAT requires immense focus and consideration, which ironically sometimes results in "tunnel vision."
If you're generally doing better on 5-stars than 1-stars, try to reset your mental before each question and accept the adage that "sometimes, it really is that simple."
Good question. Do you remember that lesson in an earlier unit on Translating? I think there was a YouTube video of Richard Feynman talking about translating difficult passages—Feynman was talking about dinosaurs if my memory serves? So basically, sometimes I'll translate stimuli into nested bullet points or nested numbered lists such that it is clear which propositions/claims/phenomena are present in a given stimulus and what the structure of support in the stimulus actually is (e.g. nest minor premises under major premises, list major premises under the main conclusion, etc.). The way I do this can depend on the stem type and stimulus. Often I don't even translate stimuli (e.g. if I'm unsure of the translation's accuracy, if there isn't enough clear benefit to be gained from doing a translation, etc.). Some stimuli do more to lend themselves to translating than others. In any case, I tried doing a translation of this question's stimulus but then decided against it. I was able to get at the right answer, but it was definitely a slow burner. I've often found that translating a stimulus can help a lot especially when PoE seems tricky.
Wow I nailed that 23 seconds faster than the target time. I didn't need to diagram it or anything. I was so sure of the answer...... Just so everyone is aware, bragging camp is going well for me. lol
Same, I was thinking about size of small studies vs large before I even read the answers. Divine intervention for the win. I just think that I can't rely on it since I can't guarantee that such spark of intuition will happen on the real test.
I understand why D is the right answer but how in the world am I going to have time to draw like that on the test? Is there an easier way to pick D apart?
If you budget your time well and spend no more than a minute on easy questions (3/5 difficulty or lower), you should be able to return to a few difficult questions you flagged and spend 2-3 minutes on them.
For most questions, diagramming is a waste of time.
I think you have to do POE. When it comes down to it, knowing that the wrong answers are definitely wrong is going to save you many more times than really truly understanding why the right answer is right.
I also don't really like diagramming -- for me, I take way too long to draw it out and am prone to make errors that way.
I got the right answer quickly by paying attention to key measurement terms that point out the scope of the claim. Once I saw the word "only" in the first sentence ("Newspapers generally report on only those scientific..."), I know I have to pay attention because this is a really strong claim. Only? So generally speaking, ALL scientific studies that newspapers report have dramatic-sounding claims?
Lets keep reading. The next key measurement term -- "are more frequent". This is pretty ambiguous. Maybe there is 1 more report on a small observational study than a large randomized trial. Maybe there are 50 more. Who knows? If there's only 1 more report, then the argument that there is a positive relationship between small observational studies and dramatic findings is pretty bad. "More frequent" is too broad, and at this point, we should see that theres a disparity in the confidence in the strength of this claim and the first sentence in the passage.
Now, I know I should be looking for answer choices that are largely concerned with the rate of reporting a certain types of study, since this is what the passage focuses on and we've already realized some flaws in that category.
Lets go hunting. The only two answer choices that talk about rate in terms of publishing stories are B and D. B is too general -- while it encourages us to assume that this hypothetical gap represents a significant portion of reported studies, you can also argue that this failure could apply to one, singular study. So its not a strong flaw to point out. D, on the other hand, nicely points out the gap that we saw earlier in "are more frequent". If there is only 1 more report on small observational studies compared to large randomized trials, then the final sentence is a pretty bad argument. But if small observational studies are far more common (D), then we see an entirely other (and reasonable) explanation for the flaw that we found in the generality of "are more frequent".
Took me 5 minutes and 26 secs and it clicked... I was so tempted to guess and move on but realized it's better to take my time and actually give effort so I can learn from my process--for better efficiency in the actual test. When it's hard, take your time and conquer the question--run towards it!!!
small observational studies are somewhat unreliable
large randomized trials are more reliable
new stories about small observational studies are more frequent than those about large randomized trials
conclusion: small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings than large trials
I had a very hard time seeing the flaw in this argument and didn't spot it until reading answer choice D). Reading D) prompted me to think: "Wait, let's say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials. Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, that would still be consistent with more frequent news stories on observational studies (10 vs 20). What if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still see more stories on observational studies (5 vs 50)." If D) is true, the argument really falls apart: the reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common (aka more of them are conducted), then they would be more likely to appear in the news.
136 comments
The way I didn't struggle on this level 5 difficulty question, but then I am genuinely stumped on a few level 2 difficult questions. 🤡
@jessverpez literally me, I instantly found the right answer but on level 2 questions I sometimes struggle :(
Anyone else sooo over this? 😭
today was hard :/
nooo, dont be over this!! you got it :)
I really needed to hear this, thank you <3
The happiness you feel when you get the question right with 30 seconds to spare only to find out it’s a lvl 5 difficult and JY says it’s a tough question. I’m on a high right now guys
yesss mood rn
I've gotten all of these right so far. I can't wait to get absolutely humbled in the final drill lol
I just read the answer choices and picked the answer that made the most sense intuitively. If I am getting questions right this way, is it necessary to do a deep dive?
I'm going through the same thing! It may be helpful to just know why you got it right and why the other ones are wrong so you can find some patterns and (hopefully) be able to use them in other questions in which answers may not intuitively come to you, if that makes sense. Hope this is helpful! :)
If I'm able to answer intuitively I do BUT I go back in during blind review and really think about why an answer is right and why the others are wrong. I do this so I'm really drilling in the skills we're learning. I fear only relying on being able to do it intuitively without a true understanding of what makes something right vs wrong will hurt me down the road.
Yes, you might get it right for the wrong reasons
@CharChar3 Gay
Needed this one after bombing the previous level 1 question lol
I'm just gonna have to accept that I will get some questions wrong and not fully know why yet
So the trick with this one is a sampling bias. We know from the article that, quantity wise, there are more articles written on small studies than large, and the person assumes this is because those have more dramatic headlines.
The problem is that we don't know if this is reasoning is accurate because there might just be MORE small studies done overall. The papers might even report on a higher percentage of large studies, but they might just be infrequent compared to small studies. If what I just described is the case, large studies could be just as likely to have dramatic headlines, rendering the claim false.
I love when JY is like "I have no idea why this answer is so popular only an IDIOT and a FOOL would select it" thank you, sir, timing pressure is real unfortunately
level 5 right FUCK YEA
This question kicked my ass
I get the last 1 star question wrong (which only 2% of people got tricked on apparently), then get a 5 star correct. No idea what to make of this lol.
I'm close to giving up lol. I got this right but the last couple of 1-star questions wrong. Where the hell am I going wrong? sooooooo frustrating. I was even able to say the answer choice before finding it. Am I able to get some feedback on why this may be happening? Why are the "easier" questions more difficult to understand and thus answer?
So as as far as this question goes, my sense is the correct answer was comparatively less ideal. I also think the "bait" answer choice was pretty strong bait—stronger bait than what the 7sage question difficulty would indicate in my honest opinion. I got this one right, but like, by no means did I get this right in a timely manner. I had every answer choice crossed out. And the correct answer here was not ideal. But once it clicked why the correct answer choice was right, I knew it was the right one. I know at the beginning of this unit we were told that often the "fails to consider the possibility" variety wrong answer choices are wrong because the alternative possibility in the answer choice doesn't actually pertain to the argument or its support structure. In the case of this question however, it absolutely did. If small observational studies are just more frequent than large randomized studies, this would redirect the explanatory direction of support entirely—it blasts the argument wide open, basically. Now having said all of this, I will say that I had a hard time trying to translate this stimulus. I found myself not even translating the argument at all. And while I was still able to get to the right answer, it definitely took me a little bit of time. If anyone actually produced a translation of the stimulus which actually helped get to the right answer in PoE I would be curious to see it.
I find that question level is mostly an indicator of how difficult/abstract the phrasing in the answers is relative to the stimulus. The LSAT requires immense focus and consideration, which ironically sometimes results in "tunnel vision."
If you're generally doing better on 5-stars than 1-stars, try to reset your mental before each question and accept the adage that "sometimes, it really is that simple."
Translation into what? Logic or something more understandable, like regular speech?
Also, thank you very much for your reply. All effort is greatly appreciated.
Good question. Do you remember that lesson in an earlier unit on Translating? I think there was a YouTube video of Richard Feynman talking about translating difficult passages—Feynman was talking about dinosaurs if my memory serves? So basically, sometimes I'll translate stimuli into nested bullet points or nested numbered lists such that it is clear which propositions/claims/phenomena are present in a given stimulus and what the structure of support in the stimulus actually is (e.g. nest minor premises under major premises, list major premises under the main conclusion, etc.). The way I do this can depend on the stem type and stimulus. Often I don't even translate stimuli (e.g. if I'm unsure of the translation's accuracy, if there isn't enough clear benefit to be gained from doing a translation, etc.). Some stimuli do more to lend themselves to translating than others. In any case, I tried doing a translation of this question's stimulus but then decided against it. I was able to get at the right answer, but it was definitely a slow burner. I've often found that translating a stimulus can help a lot especially when PoE seems tricky.
Sorry for any typos btw lol.
yes, its the overthinking
Wow I nailed that 23 seconds faster than the target time. I didn't need to diagram it or anything. I was so sure of the answer...... Just so everyone is aware, bragging camp is going well for me. lol
Same, I was thinking about size of small studies vs large before I even read the answers. Divine intervention for the win. I just think that I can't rely on it since I can't guarantee that such spark of intuition will happen on the real test.
Nothing humbles me more than studying for the lsat
I understand why D is the right answer but how in the world am I going to have time to draw like that on the test? Is there an easier way to pick D apart?
#help (Added by Admin)
[delete]
If you budget your time well and spend no more than a minute on easy questions (3/5 difficulty or lower), you should be able to return to a few difficult questions you flagged and spend 2-3 minutes on them.
For most questions, diagramming is a waste of time.
I think you have to do POE. When it comes down to it, knowing that the wrong answers are definitely wrong is going to save you many more times than really truly understanding why the right answer is right.
I also don't really like diagramming -- for me, I take way too long to draw it out and am prone to make errors that way.
I got the right answer quickly by paying attention to key measurement terms that point out the scope of the claim. Once I saw the word "only" in the first sentence ("Newspapers generally report on only those scientific..."), I know I have to pay attention because this is a really strong claim. Only? So generally speaking, ALL scientific studies that newspapers report have dramatic-sounding claims?
Lets keep reading. The next key measurement term -- "are more frequent". This is pretty ambiguous. Maybe there is 1 more report on a small observational study than a large randomized trial. Maybe there are 50 more. Who knows? If there's only 1 more report, then the argument that there is a positive relationship between small observational studies and dramatic findings is pretty bad. "More frequent" is too broad, and at this point, we should see that theres a disparity in the confidence in the strength of this claim and the first sentence in the passage.
Now, I know I should be looking for answer choices that are largely concerned with the rate of reporting a certain types of study, since this is what the passage focuses on and we've already realized some flaws in that category.
Lets go hunting. The only two answer choices that talk about rate in terms of publishing stories are B and D. B is too general -- while it encourages us to assume that this hypothetical gap represents a significant portion of reported studies, you can also argue that this failure could apply to one, singular study. So its not a strong flaw to point out. D, on the other hand, nicely points out the gap that we saw earlier in "are more frequent". If there is only 1 more report on small observational studies compared to large randomized trials, then the final sentence is a pretty bad argument. But if small observational studies are far more common (D), then we see an entirely other (and reasonable) explanation for the flaw that we found in the generality of "are more frequent".
Hope this made sense!
I'm wondering the same thing #help
real
How do I get the level 5 question 14 seconds under the target time but I spend 1 minute above the target time on a level 1 question just to fail it.
I have literally never done a hard question under time but this was seemingly easy as 123. Idk whats going on but im okay with it
i've getting the easier questions incorrect but the harder questions correct #help
@jansenbienmbelarmino same here does anyone know what flaw in reasoning causes this?
i keep second guessing myself enough is ENOUGH
Ah yes. A level 1 difficulty to a level 5 curve breaker.
@RamseyEaton xD
Wow, I am having a really tough time with this section....even with the easier set of questions.
Took me 5 minutes and 26 secs and it clicked... I was so tempted to guess and move on but realized it's better to take my time and actually give effort so I can learn from my process--for better efficiency in the actual test. When it's hard, take your time and conquer the question--run towards it!!!
premises:
news bias to report studies that sound dramatic
small observational studies are somewhat unreliablelarge randomized trials are more reliablenew stories about small observational studies are more frequent than those about large randomized trials
conclusion: small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings than large trials
I had a very hard time seeing the flaw in this argument and didn't spot it until reading answer choice D). Reading D) prompted me to think: "Wait, let's say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials. Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, that would still be consistent with more frequent news stories on observational studies (10 vs 20). What if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still see more stories on observational studies (5 vs 50)." If D) is true, the argument really falls apart: the reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common (aka more of them are conducted), then they would be more likely to appear in the news.
@AudreyGilmour The premises I crossed out are just distraction in the stimulus, they aren't actually relevant to the argument and just confused me
welcome back to another episode of me choosing the right answer and then gaslighting myself into the wrong one
Same - he 100% correct actual and 0% in BR makes me feel like the biggest goof every time