In RC, I'm having trouble with locating where I need to be per a question stem. Sometimes the same or a similar concept is throughout the passage, and the point we need is just hidden among words and words of text. How can I locate where I need to be faster?
I'm really missing the quick-view option here. I'm now regretting not bringing up the passage in drills and trying to answer before the breakdowns. Quick-view is very helpful and keeps me engaged rather than feeling lectured to; it is too easy to say to myself that I would have picked the right answer.
4
[deleted]
Sunday, Jun 22, 2025
This feels like cheating. If we had gone through the stimulus in detail, over 3 lessons before getting the question or answer choices on a LR question they would have felt a lot easier too. Feels like its too easy when we start with the guided breakdown before we even see the question.
Comparison of relevant portions of reading for answers A and B to demonstrate why A is most analogous:
"...sometimes invaluable in presenting the physical details of a personal injury"
Do they present physical details?
Schematic: Yes
Map: Yes
"The end user is typically a jury or a judge, for whose benefit the depiction is reduced to the details that are crucial to determining the legally relevant facts."
Are they reduced to relevant details as they pertain to a specific audience?
Schematic: Yes, its specified use in a presentation implies the schematic will show that which the engineer feels is relevant and leave out other details (e.g. plumbing but not furniture)
Map: Somewhat, while a map will leave out some details, it is closer to a textbook depiction of everything in a body rather than an audience-specific depiction of only some relevant portions. There is no tailored audience for the map, some may be using it to navigate, while others use it to determine political boundaries, etc.
"...provide visual representations of data whose verbal description would be very complex. Expert testimony by medical professionals often relies heavily on the use of technical terminology, which those who are not specially trained in the field find difficult to translate mentally into visual imagery."
Does it depict something that commonly requires knowledge of specialized technical vocabulary that makes it hard to visualize?
Schematic: Yes, engineering terms can be highly technical and are more readily understood after specialized training.
Map: No, the terms to describe how one should navigate around an area are not highly technical. While there may be specific knowledge of an area, one does not need specialized training in order to understand what that knowledge means.
I was debating between A and B. I read "schematics" in A as being something simple or basic to accompany the engineer's oral talk, and read "maps" in B as being something very detailed and intricate similar to textbook illustrations, and chose A based on that.
I'm failing to see where the passage suggests that the illustrations will be used as a supplement rather than a replacement. I am not necessarily saying that it seems like the passage is suggesting replacement, but nothing in the last paragraph leads me to believe that they will be used together or separate. I would even argue that the phrase "are especially valuable in that they provide visual representations of data whose verbal descriptions would otherwise be very complex" causes me to lean towards the idea that the illustrations would actually replace the verbal descriptions. Can anyone help?
You're right that the illustrations probably would replace specific description of the the thing represented, or at least change how an expert discusses the thing represented in the illustration. But I don't see any suggestion that the illustration would replace the expert's testimony -- as in, the expert wouldn't need to discuss anything, we could just look at the illustration. In fact, we know that the expert at least must tell us that the illustration is accurate, so the passage does suggest the expert is at least on the stand testifying to something concerning the illustration.
"I examined the patient. And here's a visual of what I observed in the X-ray."
This still wouldn't fit B, which is more like, "Your honor, we present an X-ray of what the doctor found, so we don't need to speak to the doctor."
It suggests it will compliment in the last paragraph as the author says that the costume illustrations will help to "clarify" medical jargon for those without the extensive medical knowledge required to understand the jargon. The author says it would be difficult for such people to "translate" the jargon to imagery themselves. Hence, the costume illustrations will provide this for them, supplementing the medical expert testimonies. The word "otherwise" is key here. If implies that without the illustrations accompanying the expert testimony jurors or judges would find it very difficult to understand the medical expert testimonies.
Think about it this way, why would you trust a lawyer to explain a medical illustration? You wouldn't (I hope), you need a medical expert to make your argument as a lawyer credible. You also would not go to a doctor for a legal advice (I hope). You want "advice" for a specific situation from an expert in that specific field.
You can't just make up quotes lol. At no point does the selection state the illustrations would "clarify." It actually doesn't use that word in any context.
Though custom illustrations for most injuries, that have been determined to be accurate by a medical expert, and illustrations from a medical textbook, represent the same injury, and though, as one of the opponents in this passage says, if multiple people sustain the same type of injury then the way that injury x impacts the particular area of the body is standard, the former is not actually a reproduction of the illustrations in the latter.
Here's why - the whole purpose behind using custom illustrations - for most injuries - compared to illustrations in medical textbooks, is to help the judge and/or jury better visualize what the medical expert is saying.
This is done by presenting them with custom illustrations that are "reduced to the details that are crucial to determining the legally relevant facts".
By comparison, Illustrations in medical textbooks include "extensive detail" e.g., veins and arteries, that may confuse the judge and / or jury .
Hopefully this made sense and did not confuse you more lol.
I'm wondering, are the correct ACs to Analogy questions typically pretty broad/general?
To me, (D) & (E) are clearly wrong. I'd be attracted to (B) & even (C) given their level of detail & to me, these details provide more opportunity for the ACs to connect to/capture the key elements. Vs. compared to (A) that doesn’t have much content to work with. But I understand that the underlying meaning/interpretations behind (B) and (C) make them wrong.
I expected the correct AC to have more details regarding the key elements. For example, “Schematic drawings accompanying an engineer’s [highly-technical] oral presentation.” Is it safe to say that the correct ACs to Analogy questions are usually subtly correct? While the trap ACs will usually supply more detail/content, but, this stuff is really just a distraction from the actual meaning of the AC?
It's hard to generalize in the way that you're trying to -- you might be right, for the most part. But I'm not sure. I can't say any of these general tendencies, if they exist, have ever been what I focus on when doing an Analogy question. Analogy questions aren't the kind of question where you can pinpoint a clear "red flag." Actually -- I take that back. If an answer seems to involve the exact same subject matter as the thing you're trying to come up with an analogy for, that's probably not the correct answer. That's because the LSAT knows a lot of people will just be attracted to an answer about the same subject.
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.
24 comments
what the fuck is this question, i mean really
LSAT writers just making stuff up at this point.
Grandma being dead for 50 years...lol
In RC, I'm having trouble with locating where I need to be per a question stem. Sometimes the same or a similar concept is throughout the passage, and the point we need is just hidden among words and words of text. How can I locate where I need to be faster?
I'm really missing the quick-view option here. I'm now regretting not bringing up the passage in drills and trying to answer before the breakdowns. Quick-view is very helpful and keeps me engaged rather than feeling lectured to; it is too easy to say to myself that I would have picked the right answer.
This feels like cheating. If we had gone through the stimulus in detail, over 3 lessons before getting the question or answer choices on a LR question they would have felt a lot easier too. Feels like its too easy when we start with the guided breakdown before we even see the question.
Another one I did before the video and chose A… are these tooo easy for others?
Wow, this one really threw me off
Comparison of relevant portions of reading for answers A and B to demonstrate why A is most analogous:
"...sometimes invaluable in presenting the physical details of a personal injury"
Do they present physical details?
Schematic: Yes
Map: Yes
"The end user is typically a jury or a judge, for whose benefit the depiction is reduced to the details that are crucial to determining the legally relevant facts."
Are they reduced to relevant details as they pertain to a specific audience?
Schematic: Yes, its specified use in a presentation implies the schematic will show that which the engineer feels is relevant and leave out other details (e.g. plumbing but not furniture)
Map: Somewhat, while a map will leave out some details, it is closer to a textbook depiction of everything in a body rather than an audience-specific depiction of only some relevant portions. There is no tailored audience for the map, some may be using it to navigate, while others use it to determine political boundaries, etc.
"...provide visual representations of data whose verbal description would be very complex. Expert testimony by medical professionals often relies heavily on the use of technical terminology, which those who are not specially trained in the field find difficult to translate mentally into visual imagery."
Does it depict something that commonly requires knowledge of specialized technical vocabulary that makes it hard to visualize?
Schematic: Yes, engineering terms can be highly technical and are more readily understood after specialized training.
Map: No, the terms to describe how one should navigate around an area are not highly technical. While there may be specific knowledge of an area, one does not need specialized training in order to understand what that knowledge means.
With the description on each answer makes me believe I can do it on my own but scared to get shown I don't actually know what's happening :/
I was debating between A and B. I read "schematics" in A as being something simple or basic to accompany the engineer's oral talk, and read "maps" in B as being something very detailed and intricate similar to textbook illustrations, and chose A based on that.
-
I'm failing to see where the passage suggests that the illustrations will be used as a supplement rather than a replacement. I am not necessarily saying that it seems like the passage is suggesting replacement, but nothing in the last paragraph leads me to believe that they will be used together or separate. I would even argue that the phrase "are especially valuable in that they provide visual representations of data whose verbal descriptions would otherwise be very complex" causes me to lean towards the idea that the illustrations would actually replace the verbal descriptions. Can anyone help?
You're right that the illustrations probably would replace specific description of the the thing represented, or at least change how an expert discusses the thing represented in the illustration. But I don't see any suggestion that the illustration would replace the expert's testimony -- as in, the expert wouldn't need to discuss anything, we could just look at the illustration. In fact, we know that the expert at least must tell us that the illustration is accurate, so the passage does suggest the expert is at least on the stand testifying to something concerning the illustration.
"I examined the patient. And here's a visual of what I observed in the X-ray."
This still wouldn't fit B, which is more like, "Your honor, we present an X-ray of what the doctor found, so we don't need to speak to the doctor."
It suggests it will compliment in the last paragraph as the author says that the costume illustrations will help to "clarify" medical jargon for those without the extensive medical knowledge required to understand the jargon. The author says it would be difficult for such people to "translate" the jargon to imagery themselves. Hence, the costume illustrations will provide this for them, supplementing the medical expert testimonies. The word "otherwise" is key here. If implies that without the illustrations accompanying the expert testimony jurors or judges would find it very difficult to understand the medical expert testimonies.
Think about it this way, why would you trust a lawyer to explain a medical illustration? You wouldn't (I hope), you need a medical expert to make your argument as a lawyer credible. You also would not go to a doctor for a legal advice (I hope). You want "advice" for a specific situation from an expert in that specific field.
You can't just make up quotes lol. At no point does the selection state the illustrations would "clarify." It actually doesn't use that word in any context.
.
.
laughed out loud coz of ur comment, gas lighting on an lsat prep course is diabolical
'oh that's grandma'
BUT SHE DIED 50 YEARS AGO ( ˶°ㅁ°) !!
Aren't the custom illustrations reproductions of stuff that's already in the medical textbooks?
I can see how this is confusing.
The short answer is no.
Though custom illustrations for most injuries, that have been determined to be accurate by a medical expert, and illustrations from a medical textbook, represent the same injury, and though, as one of the opponents in this passage says, if multiple people sustain the same type of injury then the way that injury x impacts the particular area of the body is standard, the former is not actually a reproduction of the illustrations in the latter.
Here's why - the whole purpose behind using custom illustrations - for most injuries - compared to illustrations in medical textbooks, is to help the judge and/or jury better visualize what the medical expert is saying.
This is done by presenting them with custom illustrations that are "reduced to the details that are crucial to determining the legally relevant facts".
By comparison, Illustrations in medical textbooks include "extensive detail" e.g., veins and arteries, that may confuse the judge and / or jury .
Hopefully this made sense and did not confuse you more lol.
I'm wondering, are the correct ACs to Analogy questions typically pretty broad/general?
To me, (D) & (E) are clearly wrong. I'd be attracted to (B) & even (C) given their level of detail & to me, these details provide more opportunity for the ACs to connect to/capture the key elements. Vs. compared to (A) that doesn’t have much content to work with. But I understand that the underlying meaning/interpretations behind (B) and (C) make them wrong.
I expected the correct AC to have more details regarding the key elements. For example, “Schematic drawings accompanying an engineer’s [highly-technical] oral presentation.” Is it safe to say that the correct ACs to Analogy questions are usually subtly correct? While the trap ACs will usually supply more detail/content, but, this stuff is really just a distraction from the actual meaning of the AC?
It's hard to generalize in the way that you're trying to -- you might be right, for the most part. But I'm not sure. I can't say any of these general tendencies, if they exist, have ever been what I focus on when doing an Analogy question. Analogy questions aren't the kind of question where you can pinpoint a clear "red flag." Actually -- I take that back. If an answer seems to involve the exact same subject matter as the thing you're trying to come up with an analogy for, that's probably not the correct answer. That's because the LSAT knows a lot of people will just be attracted to an answer about the same subject.