If D said "some" lawyers instead of "most", would it still be incorrect, because the passage only gives facts about some lawyers beliefs re: custom-made illustrations... we don't explicitly know their beliefs on textbook vs custom-made illustration?
Essentially, would it be a reasonable inference to make that "some" lawyers believe that textbook illustrations are less prone than custom-made illustrations to misrepresent nature of personal injury?
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?
@BrigidCarlin Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I've always thought of the word "many" as a fancy "some". There is no exact meaning of the word "many", and since there is no hard and fast rule about it, I never feel comfortable assuming that "many" indicates "most". Many people throughout the world like playing badminton (as in, a significant number of people), but you couldn't say that most (51% of) people in the world like playing badminton. I think of "some" and "many" as proportion words, whereas "many" is a magnitude word.
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)
As someone that just finished the entire LR curriculum, training yourself to have a nose for quantifiers (some, most, many, majority) and qualifiers (likely, unlikely, possibly) is seemingly very important for both LR and RC.
Often times a very easy way of eliminating wrong answers is by spotting the wrong quantifier like Kevin did here. But their applications don't stop there. Definitely worth your time to start recognizing and understanding these.
Also, this is more related to LR, but the quantifiers most and some in specific actually have specific logic translations that are important to learn. Definitely touch on those lessons too if you haven't already.
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.
Click ‘quick view’ its easy to miss as it’s so small. This option can be found under the lesson time. I think 7Sage just recently made this option available for all questions.
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
Thanks for the feedback Kevin! If that were the case, for this question, which answer would be stronger, E or the altered answer choice I provided? Would it be likely for there to be 2 answer choices this close on the exam? Thanks again!
Yeah, we can pick "some" if the text said "most." That's because "most" means over half...so that guarantees at least one ("some"). We can always conclude something weaker than what the passage/stimulus said.
They wouldn't give 2 correct answers. Not to say you won't think 2 are correct because you're missing a small nuance in one of them...
As for whether the altered version of (D) would be better than the correct answer, I don't think so. The passage doesn't tell us what lawyers think about the comparison between custom and medical...maybe they think medical textbook illustrations are just as likely to misrepresent, but for other reasons besides the parties/illustrators exaggerating things? I admit it's tough to get rid of the altered version of (D), though. Probably why the LSAT didn't write it that way!
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.
We just don't have any line support for the idea that the textbook illustrations need to be supported by an expert.
(In real trials, depending on the jurisdiction, it's possible we don't need an expert to testify to the accuracy of the illustration. Perhaps the court can take judicial notice that a particular textbook is widely used in the field and that's the basis of its admissibility.)
Never mind, forget I asked anything. I realized that I made a common LR error. Just because a person believes A and you know that A leads to B, it doesn't mean the person believes in B.
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.
27 comments
yay got this right
If D said "some" lawyers instead of "most", would it still be incorrect, because the passage only gives facts about some lawyers beliefs re: custom-made illustrations... we don't explicitly know their beliefs on textbook vs custom-made illustration?
Essentially, would it be a reasonable inference to make that "some" lawyers believe that textbook illustrations are less prone than custom-made illustrations to misrepresent nature of personal injury?
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?
@BrigidCarlin Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I've always thought of the word "many" as a fancy "some". There is no exact meaning of the word "many", and since there is no hard and fast rule about it, I never feel comfortable assuming that "many" indicates "most". Many people throughout the world like playing badminton (as in, a significant number of people), but you couldn't say that most (51% of) people in the world like playing badminton. I think of "some" and "many" as proportion words, whereas "many" is a magnitude word.
@ZealousAltruisticMode thank you!
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)
It is in the first few lessons in LR, the lesson is titled "Logic of Intersecting Sets"
As someone that just finished the entire LR curriculum, training yourself to have a nose for quantifiers (some, most, many, majority) and qualifiers (likely, unlikely, possibly) is seemingly very important for both LR and RC.
Often times a very easy way of eliminating wrong answers is by spotting the wrong quantifier like Kevin did here. But their applications don't stop there. Definitely worth your time to start recognizing and understanding these.
Also, this is more related to LR, but the quantifiers most and some in specific actually have specific logic translations that are important to learn. Definitely touch on those lessons too if you haven't already.
I sincerely appreciate this advice :) thank you!
Best of luck with your studies!
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.
Click ‘quick view’ its easy to miss as it’s so small. This option can be found under the lesson time. I think 7Sage just recently made this option available for all questions.
Did Kevin go to UF? Always using gator colors. Go gators!
GO GATORS!!!!!!
Go Bears! Blue and orange just happen to work well as contrasting pen colors. 7Sage does have a sizable UF contingent, though...
GO NOLES!
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
Thanks for the feedback Kevin! If that were the case, for this question, which answer would be stronger, E or the altered answer choice I provided? Would it be likely for there to be 2 answer choices this close on the exam? Thanks again!
Yeah, we can pick "some" if the text said "most." That's because "most" means over half...so that guarantees at least one ("some"). We can always conclude something weaker than what the passage/stimulus said.
They wouldn't give 2 correct answers. Not to say you won't think 2 are correct because you're missing a small nuance in one of them...
As for whether the altered version of (D) would be better than the correct answer, I don't think so. The passage doesn't tell us what lawyers think about the comparison between custom and medical...maybe they think medical textbook illustrations are just as likely to misrepresent, but for other reasons besides the parties/illustrators exaggerating things? I admit it's tough to get rid of the altered version of (D), though. Probably why the LSAT didn't write it that way!
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.
We just don't have any line support for the idea that the textbook illustrations need to be supported by an expert.
(In real trials, depending on the jurisdiction, it's possible we don't need an expert to testify to the accuracy of the illustration. Perhaps the court can take judicial notice that a particular textbook is widely used in the field and that's the basis of its admissibility.)
Never mind, forget I asked anything. I realized that I made a common LR error. Just because a person believes A and you know that A leads to B, it doesn't mean the person believes in B.