I use the light-bulb explanations first, because explanation videos can be long. If I still don't understand the light-bulb explanations, I watch the videos.
I look at the written explanations if I got the question wrong (even if I got it correct on BR). If I still feel like I don't really get it, or if it's in a topic that I have some issues with, I watch the video
I like using both. The bulb if I get a question wrong the first time and right on blind review. The video if I got it wrong both times. Also sometimes the video has different reasoning that I didn't even consider so it gives me a more in depth overview of the question and the correct way to go about reasoning it out.
If I got it right on the BR and I am confident in why my answer was wrong, I use the written explanations. If I have no idea why I missed the question or if I did not understand the meaning of the question, I will use the video explanation. Between the two of them, I use the written explanations most during my study time.
I primarily use the written explanations. Occasionally, if I'm really stumped by a question, I'll watch the video(s). For me the preference mainly comes down to efficiency -- it takes longer to watch a video than to get the gist of a written explanation. Alternatively, I will watch part of a video to see if the video gives different reasoning for an AC than the written explanation does so that I can understand the problem more deeply.
When I was just starting out, video explanations helped because I needed to further understand the concept. Now that I understand the concepts, I use the written explanations because it just is a quick reminder of what I did wrong and I don't need further explanation about the concept itself.
@MayorOfWhoville agreed. I still will use the video explanations for questions I am really stumped on. I often use written explanations for questions I got right - and just want to make sure my line of thinking was correct
I look at written explanations first, then watch videos if those don't explain it well. I sometimes jump to the video first if a question was really hard and I just want to watch someone explain it step-by-step. It's oftentimes more useful if the written explanations offer both the explanation given in the video AND a different way of reaching the same conclusion/eliminating the wrong answer choice/selecting the right one. That way there's multiple ways of understanding how to get to the right outcome.
I wish there were some videos with a breakdown of how someone would solve it in real time. The instructor could pause the video and explain their reasoning and what they are looking at/for.
This would particularly be helpful for approach. The current videos are definitely helpful but the more condensed version would be perfect in terms of application of principles in a timed setting.
I always first watch the videos, because they give me a sense of how another person reads and engages with the stimulus and the question's logic. I feel that has been the most helpful aspect of the 7Sage videos. Listening to how instructors translate the stimulus and where they pause and reflect has truly helped me with pattern recognition. Kevin's videos give detailed breakdowns of why each answer choice is wrong. So they've been great for in-depth review. JY's videos give me that sense of a live take, like a live reaction to the stimulus and answer choices that feel similar to how I'd react to questions during a timed take. So they've been really helpful with developing my critical intuition for problem-solving under time pressure.
I typically use the written explanations for help with understanding why the wrong answers are wrong but the video explanations to help with understanding why the right answers are right. I personally find that JY sometimes brushes off answer choices that I might have picked without giving much of a formal explanation as to why they're wrong so reviewing a more dedicated explanation available for every answer choice on every question more frequently triggers me to understand what I did wrong. But JY also gives more detailed and logically intuitive explanations as compared to the written explanations for why the right answers are right which more frequently triggers me to understand what I did right. I also find JY's breakdown of the stimuli to make more sense on average than the written explanations.
i mainly use the written explanations, and if i still cant understand it, i'll use the video. i prefer the written explanation because it helps me see easier where i was lacking. if that is not enough, that means i dont understand the concept, so i'll watch the video
I only use the written explanations, but often find that they do not provide enough explanation for their reasoning. It is especially frustrating when questions with formal logic, such as conditional reasoning questions, do not provide the mapped out logic. For example, the analysis for the stimulus may or may not provide a logic map, and the answer choices usually do not provide a logic map. I would like to see more written explanations that include a logic map of what that answer choice says and why it is wrong (i.e. it does not match with what the question is asking or does not fit into the formal logic of the stimulus). A lot of the explanations just say "this is not supported." without explaining why and how.
@kroper4 It sounds like if there's a conditional reasoning issue, you'd prefer a diagram-based explanation over an English-based one when possible, is that right?
For example:
All apples are red. This fruit is red. So, it's an apple.
Instead of just an explanation saying "Although we know all apples are red, this doesn't mean all red fruits are apples. There could be other red fruits, like a strawberry. The author is taking something necessary for being an apple (red) and thinking it's sufficient for being apple."
You'd prefer something more like:
apple --> red
red
So, apple.
The author reverses the conditional premise -- he reads it as "red --> apple."
@Kevin_Lin thanks for your response! yes, a diagram explanation would be much more helpful when conditional reasoning is involved, especially to spot any issues with translating the stimulus into logic
I check the written ones first in case it's a really obvious explanation that instantly makes me go "ahhh how did I miss this?!" But if it doesn't give me a light bulb moment (no pun intended), that's when I watch the videos for a more detailed explanation. So both are equally helpful.
I will use the written explanations to rule out individual ACs, assuming I understand the stem & stimulus initially. If I don't get it at all, then I use the video explanation, so they have entirely different use cases for me.
I look at both but prefer video bc I find the lightbulbs don't always address the part of the question or AC that caused me confusion, and being able to follow the full thought process and breakdown of a question via the videos is rly helpful for identifying what I overlooked or got confused over in my thought process. Seeing and hearing it explained via video helps it click in a way that isn't quite the same when in writing.
If after watching the video and reviewing the lightbulbs it still hasn't clicked, I'll usually then go to the discussion page to see if anyone else got it wrong bc of a similar thought process/point of confusion and if I'm still confused I'll then go to lsathacks or some other source to see if a different explanation is helpful
I usually use both. The written explanations often don't have the full, in-depth explanation that the videos do. The videos sometimes have tips to keep in mind for future questions which is also helpful. I use the written explanations kind of as a precursor for the video explanations.
Written explanations! I have ADHD, so I happen to absorb written content a little better. I find that the written explanations + reading through the comments helped me for the most part! I'm also someone who prefers trying to figure out a question by myself and work backwards from the correct answer. It's also nice to quickly glance at why each answer choice is incorrect.
Typically, I start with the written. If I am still having trouble understanding where I went wrong with those, I turn to the videos to supplement them.
I mainly use the video explanation, hearing it makes it easier for me to repeat the part that isn't clicking in my head as opposed to trying to break down the one or two sentences on my own (if they're not immediately clicking).
If I get the question right, then for review, I'll only read the written explanations. If I get it wrong, I'll immediately jump to the video explanations.
66 comments
I use the light-bulb explanations first, because explanation videos can be long. If I still don't understand the light-bulb explanations, I watch the videos.
I look at the written explanations if I got the question wrong (even if I got it correct on BR). If I still feel like I don't really get it, or if it's in a topic that I have some issues with, I watch the video
I like using both. The bulb if I get a question wrong the first time and right on blind review. The video if I got it wrong both times. Also sometimes the video has different reasoning that I didn't even consider so it gives me a more in depth overview of the question and the correct way to go about reasoning it out.
If I got it right on the BR and I am confident in why my answer was wrong, I use the written explanations. If I have no idea why I missed the question or if I did not understand the meaning of the question, I will use the video explanation. Between the two of them, I use the written explanations most during my study time.
I primarily use the written explanations. Occasionally, if I'm really stumped by a question, I'll watch the video(s). For me the preference mainly comes down to efficiency -- it takes longer to watch a video than to get the gist of a written explanation. Alternatively, I will watch part of a video to see if the video gives different reasoning for an AC than the written explanation does so that I can understand the problem more deeply.
ABSOLUTELY love your detailed video explanations!
When I was just starting out, video explanations helped because I needed to further understand the concept. Now that I understand the concepts, I use the written explanations because it just is a quick reminder of what I did wrong and I don't need further explanation about the concept itself.
@MayorOfWhoville agreed. I still will use the video explanations for questions I am really stumped on. I often use written explanations for questions I got right - and just want to make sure my line of thinking was correct
I look at written explanations first, then watch videos if those don't explain it well. I sometimes jump to the video first if a question was really hard and I just want to watch someone explain it step-by-step. It's oftentimes more useful if the written explanations offer both the explanation given in the video AND a different way of reaching the same conclusion/eliminating the wrong answer choice/selecting the right one. That way there's multiple ways of understanding how to get to the right outcome.
I wish there were some videos with a breakdown of how someone would solve it in real time. The instructor could pause the video and explain their reasoning and what they are looking at/for.
This would particularly be helpful for approach. The current videos are definitely helpful but the more condensed version would be perfect in terms of application of principles in a timed setting.
I always first watch the videos, because they give me a sense of how another person reads and engages with the stimulus and the question's logic. I feel that has been the most helpful aspect of the 7Sage videos. Listening to how instructors translate the stimulus and where they pause and reflect has truly helped me with pattern recognition. Kevin's videos give detailed breakdowns of why each answer choice is wrong. So they've been great for in-depth review. JY's videos give me that sense of a live take, like a live reaction to the stimulus and answer choices that feel similar to how I'd react to questions during a timed take. So they've been really helpful with developing my critical intuition for problem-solving under time pressure.
I typically use the written explanations for help with understanding why the wrong answers are wrong but the video explanations to help with understanding why the right answers are right. I personally find that JY sometimes brushes off answer choices that I might have picked without giving much of a formal explanation as to why they're wrong so reviewing a more dedicated explanation available for every answer choice on every question more frequently triggers me to understand what I did wrong. But JY also gives more detailed and logically intuitive explanations as compared to the written explanations for why the right answers are right which more frequently triggers me to understand what I did right. I also find JY's breakdown of the stimuli to make more sense on average than the written explanations.
i mainly use the written explanations, and if i still cant understand it, i'll use the video. i prefer the written explanation because it helps me see easier where i was lacking. if that is not enough, that means i dont understand the concept, so i'll watch the video
I only use the written explanations, but often find that they do not provide enough explanation for their reasoning. It is especially frustrating when questions with formal logic, such as conditional reasoning questions, do not provide the mapped out logic. For example, the analysis for the stimulus may or may not provide a logic map, and the answer choices usually do not provide a logic map. I would like to see more written explanations that include a logic map of what that answer choice says and why it is wrong (i.e. it does not match with what the question is asking or does not fit into the formal logic of the stimulus). A lot of the explanations just say "this is not supported." without explaining why and how.
@kroper4 It sounds like if there's a conditional reasoning issue, you'd prefer a diagram-based explanation over an English-based one when possible, is that right?
For example:
All apples are red. This fruit is red. So, it's an apple.
Instead of just an explanation saying "Although we know all apples are red, this doesn't mean all red fruits are apples. There could be other red fruits, like a strawberry. The author is taking something necessary for being an apple (red) and thinking it's sufficient for being apple."
You'd prefer something more like:
apple --> red
red
So, apple.
The author reverses the conditional premise -- he reads it as "red --> apple."
@Kevin_Lin me too!
@Kevin_Lin yes I prefer that too!
@Kevin_Lin thanks for your response! yes, a diagram explanation would be much more helpful when conditional reasoning is involved, especially to spot any issues with translating the stimulus into logic
I use both. If the questions are extremely confusing, I will watch the videos, use the light bulb, and read the comments.
I check the written ones first in case it's a really obvious explanation that instantly makes me go "ahhh how did I miss this?!" But if it doesn't give me a light bulb moment (no pun intended), that's when I watch the videos for a more detailed explanation. So both are equally helpful.
I will use the written explanations to rule out individual ACs, assuming I understand the stem & stimulus initially. If I don't get it at all, then I use the video explanation, so they have entirely different use cases for me.
I look at both but prefer video bc I find the lightbulbs don't always address the part of the question or AC that caused me confusion, and being able to follow the full thought process and breakdown of a question via the videos is rly helpful for identifying what I overlooked or got confused over in my thought process. Seeing and hearing it explained via video helps it click in a way that isn't quite the same when in writing.
If after watching the video and reviewing the lightbulbs it still hasn't clicked, I'll usually then go to the discussion page to see if anyone else got it wrong bc of a similar thought process/point of confusion and if I'm still confused I'll then go to lsathacks or some other source to see if a different explanation is helpful
I usually use both. The written explanations often don't have the full, in-depth explanation that the videos do. The videos sometimes have tips to keep in mind for future questions which is also helpful. I use the written explanations kind of as a precursor for the video explanations.
Both! Often the video and written explanations introduce new considerations/approaches, so I find the combination to be very helpful.
Written explanations! I have ADHD, so I happen to absorb written content a little better. I find that the written explanations + reading through the comments helped me for the most part! I'm also someone who prefers trying to figure out a question by myself and work backwards from the correct answer. It's also nice to quickly glance at why each answer choice is incorrect.
Typically, I start with the written. If I am still having trouble understanding where I went wrong with those, I turn to the videos to supplement them.
I'm a visual learner so I solely rely on the videos. The videos are also more in depth usually than the written explanations which I like.
I mainly use the video explanation, hearing it makes it easier for me to repeat the part that isn't clicking in my head as opposed to trying to break down the one or two sentences on my own (if they're not immediately clicking).
Written only. I can read the explanation in (obviously) a fraction of the time it takes to watch the video and move on far quicker.
If I get the question right, then for review, I'll only read the written explanations. If I get it wrong, I'll immediately jump to the video explanations.