is there a quantifiable number that you can substitute for many? like how most is 50.000001% or something, and some is anything more than 0, is there a similar scale that can be used or is it just more general?
I eliminated D because the line about what the lawyers thought about the textbooks is the opposing view, and since the question asks about what the author would believe, then the lawyers' belief is not really relevant. I read this as two people really debating, and imagine the opposition bringing up this claim during a debate. We don't know if the author truly believes it. Probably not the best method but it worked in this case lol.
I think it is quite helpful how in general, you include commentary on how you would approach questions under timed conditions (while still dissecting them fully). I think this would be useful commentary to incorporate into the LR sections. When going through those lessons, it almost feels wrong to make quick/instinctual decisions on questions because of how deeply I am taught to scrutinize them.
To be clear, the deep analysis should remain, but I appreciate the lessons that make note of how an analysis might look under time pressure.
Does anyone happen to know which LR lessons discuss 'most' meaning over half? (I started RC before finishing LR and I'm going back and forth between the two sections due to limited time)
My only bit of feedback is that these should immediately be "You Try" sections that we can complete before watching Kevin do them; this seems like a critical time to begin practicing rather than just watching.
If an answer choice like D were to appear and the text said most instead of some, ( lawyers‑m→ less prone, and if the answer choice presented as lawyers ←s→ less prone, would that be a proper inference or would the answer choice have to maintain the most (1/2 +) position strictly? I ask this just for clarification in the case that there would be other competing answer choices like E present
I have a question about B. Despite the passage never mentioning medical textbook's need to be authenticated by the experts, can't I make the inference from the custom-made drawings that any drawings, even ones in textbooks, need to be authenticated before being used in court? I heard your answer which was "you can't", but why not? I would imagine that any evidence introduced in court should have the proper introduction on whether it is relevant and appropriate. In other passages, I hear "Despite the passage not mentioning X, a reasonable to infer X". Problem I have right now is that I don't know for sure which inferences are reasonable and which aren't. It's like walking through a landmine. Every step I take fills me with worry and dread.
0
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!
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.
25 comments
is there a quantifiable number that you can substitute for many? like how most is 50.000001% or something, and some is anything more than 0, is there a similar scale that can be used or is it just more general?
I eliminated D because the line about what the lawyers thought about the textbooks is the opposing view, and since the question asks about what the author would believe, then the lawyers' belief is not really relevant. I read this as two people really debating, and imagine the opposition bringing up this claim during a debate. We don't know if the author truly believes it. Probably not the best method but it worked in this case lol.
Kevin is the man
In many cases, RC answer choices are apt to confuse Emily
#feedback
I think it is quite helpful how in general, you include commentary on how you would approach questions under timed conditions (while still dissecting them fully). I think this would be useful commentary to incorporate into the LR sections. When going through those lessons, it almost feels wrong to make quick/instinctual decisions on questions because of how deeply I am taught to scrutinize them.
To be clear, the deep analysis should remain, but I appreciate the lessons that make note of how an analysis might look under time pressure.
Does anyone happen to know which LR lessons discuss 'most' meaning over half? (I started RC before finishing LR and I'm going back and forth between the two sections due to limited time)
My only bit of feedback is that these should immediately be "You Try" sections that we can complete before watching Kevin do them; this seems like a critical time to begin practicing rather than just watching.
Did Kevin go to UF? Always using gator colors. Go gators!
If an answer choice like D were to appear and the text said most instead of some, ( lawyers‑m→ less prone, and if the answer choice presented as lawyers ←s→ less prone, would that be a proper inference or would the answer choice have to maintain the most (1/2 +) position strictly? I ask this just for clarification in the case that there would be other competing answer choices like E present
I have a question about B. Despite the passage never mentioning medical textbook's need to be authenticated by the experts, can't I make the inference from the custom-made drawings that any drawings, even ones in textbooks, need to be authenticated before being used in court? I heard your answer which was "you can't", but why not? I would imagine that any evidence introduced in court should have the proper introduction on whether it is relevant and appropriate. In other passages, I hear "Despite the passage not mentioning X, a reasonable to infer X". Problem I have right now is that I don't know for sure which inferences are reasonable and which aren't. It's like walking through a landmine. Every step I take fills me with worry and dread.