If every single passage is either a single position or a critique/debate, and many but not all of the passages are one of the three Engagement-Based Style, would that mean any passage that has an Engagement-Based Style also is a single position or a critique/debate?
Damn. I just noticed all the text under the video. Should I be reading all of this in conjunction with the video?
Also: would the first passage we looked at, regarding utility, be considered a debate-style passage? The author looked at both sides, but they still gave their own point in consideration of the two.
I tend to agree. I think that while it may sometimes be helpful to delineate between different passage styles, it isn't necessarily a universally beneficial strategy
It seems like knowing the passage style helps you structurally analyze the passage, which in turn helps you analyze its reasoning and come to understand the purpose behind key premises and conclusions.
That's right. It's won't work perfectly for every passage, but for the vast majority, having a sense of the passage style helps you know what to focus on and what to expect as you read the passage.
Am I the only one who is afraid to take another practice test just due to the nature of it, if I increase and its only by a point cool but also not cool.
Many students won't see significant improvement from their first PT after the curriculum. This is because it takes time to put all the skills together under timed circumstances. The big gains come from the PTs and review after the one you take right after the CC.
_"Guiding questions to ask yourself when reading Single Position passages:
1- What is the subject of the passage? What, precisely, does the author say about the subject? (And what does the author not say?)
2- What is the perspective or central thesis being advanced?"_
Aren't question 2 and the second part of question 1 the same thing? What the author says about the subject and the author's perspective seem to be the same thing.
Since they're two different questions, I think I'm missing something you're trying to say.
Thanks for pointing this out! Edited for clarity. There shouldn't be a difference. I think the earlier formulation was meant to distinguish between what, in general, are the facts the author presents about the subject, where the second is about the opinions about the subject. But that overcomplicates things at this stage.
I appreciate the sneaky psychological trick of this new curriculum whereby the reader is primed for the RC section via long theoretical passages that are, in themselves, about the RC section
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.
32 comments
Bookmark to come back to this lesson + take notes after a few practice RC passages
There's a typo in this paragraph. Should say "was" right before the parenthetical.
Where can you find the board? I want to print them?!
@MYalda The link is here! https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVK7rUSQY=/?share_link_id=280279821437
I'm not sure it's printable though...
@Kevin_Lin thank you for sharing the link :)
my issue being types of passages (ie philosophical ones) and not the styles of them lol
Theres new information at bottom not in the video! Not sure if its helpful but definitely worth a read if there is time!
wouldn't you say that a problem is a form of a phenomenon? and an analysis is a for of hypothesis?
#feedback in the "Let's Review" section, the link takes you to an overview of RC question types, but this module discussed passage styles
@kennygee If you zoom out a bit, you'll see the Passage Styles and the rest of the board.
#feedback would be helpful to have "previous" and "next" lesson tabs at the top of each lesson page in addition to below the lesson summary
If every single passage is either a single position or a critique/debate, and many but not all of the passages are one of the three Engagement-Based Style, would that mean any passage that has an Engagement-Based Style also is a single position or a critique/debate?
Yes, that's right. And if a passage is Phen-Hypo, Prob-Analysis, or Spotlight, that's the style aspect that I'd tend to focus on.
Damn. I just noticed all the text under the video. Should I be reading all of this in conjunction with the video?
Also: would the first passage we looked at, regarding utility, be considered a debate-style passage? The author looked at both sides, but they still gave their own point in consideration of the two.
Thanks, Kevin!
Right, it's a debate style.
NO need to read all the text; for the most part it's just the same content as the videos.
And vice versa if you prefer to read the text; no need to listen to the video.
For some reason, I didn't have any video, just audio. Was that intentional?
No, there should be video. Often refreshing the page solves issues like this for me.
When you really boil down all of these passage styles, do they not all have very similar characteristics?
There is always a subject/topic
There is always a perspective (author's, individual who either shares or challenges the author's perspective)
There is always support/challenge to a perspective (Evidence or Examples)
I understand the value of predicting patterns, but, just like in LR, I think there is great commonality between passages.
I tend to agree. I think that while it may sometimes be helpful to delineate between different passage styles, it isn't necessarily a universally beneficial strategy
It seems like knowing the passage style helps you structurally analyze the passage, which in turn helps you analyze its reasoning and come to understand the purpose behind key premises and conclusions.
am I right here?
That's right. It's won't work perfectly for every passage, but for the vast majority, having a sense of the passage style helps you know what to focus on and what to expect as you read the passage.
Am I the only one who is afraid to take another practice test just due to the nature of it, if I increase and its only by a point cool but also not cool.
Many students won't see significant improvement from their first PT after the curriculum. This is because it takes time to put all the skills together under timed circumstances. The big gains come from the PTs and review after the one you take right after the CC.
Me. Haven’t studied in three days cuz I’m scared
I'm scared!!
"zombie horror rom-com" so... Warm Bodies (2013) dir. Levine
yea 3 days left, aint makin it out dis one.
I have a question about this part:
_"Guiding questions to ask yourself when reading Single Position passages:
1- What is the subject of the passage? What, precisely, does the author say about the subject? (And what does the author not say?)
2- What is the perspective or central thesis being advanced?"_
Aren't question 2 and the second part of question 1 the same thing? What the author says about the subject and the author's perspective seem to be the same thing.
Since they're two different questions, I think I'm missing something you're trying to say.
Thank you in advance!
Thanks for pointing this out! Edited for clarity. There shouldn't be a difference. I think the earlier formulation was meant to distinguish between what, in general, are the facts the author presents about the subject, where the second is about the opinions about the subject. But that overcomplicates things at this stage.
I appreciate the sneaky psychological trick of this new curriculum whereby the reader is primed for the RC section via long theoretical passages that are, in themselves, about the RC section
Is it so obvious? Darn. Video explanations begin in the "Critique or Debate" module.