Yeah, I had the same feeling as you, Kevin. D seemed so vague, but I couldn't strictly eliminate it like I could with the others. This one was difficult only because the ideas presented in the questions seemed entirely unrelated or too nebulous.
I'm not sure I understand why "jurors are usually eager to SOLIDIFY their position" (in the text) is taken to mean "to arrive at a FIRM view." (in the answer choice D).
Given that the question stem asks 'which one of the following does the author mention', we're not dealing with a Most Strongly Supported (MSS) question or looking for the 'best' inference. We're looking for something explicitly stated. Assuming that to 'solidify' a position necessarily means to 'arrive at a firm view' seems unreasonable to me.
For example, suppose I'm only 10% confident in my view, and the stealing thunder strategy helps me reach 30%. I’ve strengthened—or solidified—my view, but that doesn't mean I’ve arrived at a firm conclusion. It just means my view has become more solid than it was before.
While I understand why D is considered correct compared to the other four answer choices, I’m not convinced that D is 100% correct on its own, and regarding what the question stem is asking us.
noo its not that, I am skipping through kevins summaries on some instances to make my own and rely on my own skills of low res summary its just easier some how only worrying about one question at a time I want to say
I think these RC passages are simply easier to comprehend. I went over an "easiest" passage yesterday about a poem author strictly using English verse and rhyme (or something like that) to frame and discuss racial and religious matters (and the thoughts of critics). All of these questions were 1 or 2 stars. However, It was by far the most dense and boring material to understand. I could not even begin to feign interest in it simply because there was so much technical, non-layman language in the passage that I couldn't follow. I only got 4 of 7 questions right.
I was wondering why B is wrong since doesn't assessing a jurors reaction to a message be reasonably inferred as whether negative information can or cannot be framed positively?
I think that part is fine -- it's the part about "some lawyers' superior skill..." The passage never mentioned that some lawyers are better than others at determining how a juror will react or that this difference in skill affects the success of stealing thunder.
but why is A wrong? The passage says "For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility" is this too vague to assume "a short time" can be used in connection to the term "early" ??
@kimwexler I believe A is insinuating that the "stealing thunder" move has to be done shortly before that information has been revealed by the opposing side, and that doing it too early can be damaging. This is not what the passage was implying by the quotation you included. That line is simply describing "stealing thunder" and saying it may create an image of credibility.
I feel like the key phrase in this question is "does the AUTHOR mention". Some of the answers were inticing but only one was actually stated by the author.
I was wondering why C is wrong since it mentioned in the first paragraph that "many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be reveled in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered" , i think testify in person in C is the same meaning of being volunteered.
@MINGAO I ruled out C becuase I thought the phrasing in the AC of "their own past mistakes" was too specific. I understood the passage as mainly referring to "damaging information" which could include a mistake but doesn't have too. I think the example I leaned on was being jealous about something, and that jealously leads you to start a fight. Sure the fight itself was a mistake, but the cause of it (being jealous) isn't necessarily a mistake, just a feeling someone had that led to negative consequences. I don't know if this is the right mindset to have, but it helped me when deciding between answer choices C and D.
I confused "probably" in the question with meaning "implied" and chose the answer that seemed the most IMPLIED by the author, as opposed to stated. Which is silly because "stated" is in the question.
I also remembered the sentence about jurors incorrectly. I thought I remembered that the author said the jurors wanted to solidify their position EARLY. She only said that they want to solidify their position. The word "early" was in reference to the lawyers framing.
42 comments
0/2 lets GOOOOOOOOO
yea lets choose the most insignificant sentence of the entire stimulus and ask a question on it
@MPFerrari right, lol
@MPFerrari now you're thinking like an LSAT test writer!
Choose C on the assumption that the person testifying about their past mistake helped the author's 1st point about credibility.
same
wow that might be the most insignificant sentence in this whole passage
how was the last question a 5 but this one was a 3??
Ugh I was looking for the answer in the second paragraph and that's what had me go with A
I can def see how stated questions prey on our implicit biases
Yeah, I had the same feeling as you, Kevin. D seemed so vague, but I couldn't strictly eliminate it like I could with the others. This one was difficult only because the ideas presented in the questions seemed entirely unrelated or too nebulous.
fax
im so frustrated whenever i get a question wrong i get it right in BR
If A did not include 'only a short time' could it also be in the running for the right answer
BRUH this was so hard. I was in-between B&C even though I was confident about neither. I skipped passed D because I did not think it was significant.
I'm not sure I understand why "jurors are usually eager to SOLIDIFY their position" (in the text) is taken to mean "to arrive at a FIRM view." (in the answer choice D).
Given that the question stem asks 'which one of the following does the author mention', we're not dealing with a Most Strongly Supported (MSS) question or looking for the 'best' inference. We're looking for something explicitly stated. Assuming that to 'solidify' a position necessarily means to 'arrive at a firm view' seems unreasonable to me.
For example, suppose I'm only 10% confident in my view, and the stealing thunder strategy helps me reach 30%. I’ve strengthened—or solidified—my view, but that doesn't mean I’ve arrived at a firm conclusion. It just means my view has become more solid than it was before.
While I understand why D is considered correct compared to the other four answer choices, I’m not convinced that D is 100% correct on its own, and regarding what the question stem is asking us.
Does anyone see a flaw in my reasoning?
@BenPocheron that's where my brain went on this one.
@BenPocheron Solidify and firm are synonyms, that was my thought process lol.
how am i doing better on these versions than the actual drill version of RC someone explain 😭
noo its not that, I am skipping through kevins summaries on some instances to make my own and rely on my own skills of low res summary its just easier some how only worrying about one question at a time I want to say
I think these RC passages are simply easier to comprehend. I went over an "easiest" passage yesterday about a poem author strictly using English verse and rhyme (or something like that) to frame and discuss racial and religious matters (and the thoughts of critics). All of these questions were 1 or 2 stars. However, It was by far the most dense and boring material to understand. I could not even begin to feign interest in it simply because there was so much technical, non-layman language in the passage that I couldn't follow. I only got 4 of 7 questions right.
maybe because Kevin explained it so well and created great low res summaries lol. Something I need to practice doing better as well!
@ColinErickson I thought I was the only one, I went through the same exact thing with this passage. It's good to know I'm not alone!
I am feeling so great about RC so far! The lessons have been very helpful! #feedback
I was wondering why B is wrong since doesn't assessing a jurors reaction to a message be reasonably inferred as whether negative information can or cannot be framed positively?
I think that part is fine -- it's the part about "some lawyers' superior skill..." The passage never mentioned that some lawyers are better than others at determining how a juror will react or that this difference in skill affects the success of stealing thunder.
but why is A wrong? The passage says "For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility" is this too vague to assume "a short time" can be used in connection to the term "early" ??
@kimwexler I believe A is insinuating that the "stealing thunder" move has to be done shortly before that information has been revealed by the opposing side, and that doing it too early can be damaging. This is not what the passage was implying by the quotation you included. That line is simply describing "stealing thunder" and saying it may create an image of credibility.
im struggling with this passage tf
BRUH
no more second guessing myself
I feel like the key phrase in this question is "does the AUTHOR mention". Some of the answers were inticing but only one was actually stated by the author.
do y'all look at every single AC before moving on, or do you find one that you're pretty sure is correct and just move on for time's sake?
@yam i do and sometimes dont lol. the 7SAGE chatbot noticed I second guess my choices so I try not to do that.
I also tend to look at the end of every AC sentence and that usually tells me what its direction is instead of being upfront and summarized.
I was wondering why C is wrong since it mentioned in the first paragraph that "many lawyers believe that if the weakness is likely to be reveled in opposing testimony, it should be volunteered" , i think testify in person in C is the same meaning of being volunteered.
@MINGAO I ruled out C becuase I thought the phrasing in the AC of "their own past mistakes" was too specific. I understood the passage as mainly referring to "damaging information" which could include a mistake but doesn't have too. I think the example I leaned on was being jealous about something, and that jealously leads you to start a fight. Sure the fight itself was a mistake, but the cause of it (being jealous) isn't necessarily a mistake, just a feeling someone had that led to negative consequences. I don't know if this is the right mindset to have, but it helped me when deciding between answer choices C and D.
I confused "probably" in the question with meaning "implied" and chose the answer that seemed the most IMPLIED by the author, as opposed to stated. Which is silly because "stated" is in the question.
I also remembered the sentence about jurors incorrectly. I thought I remembered that the author said the jurors wanted to solidify their position EARLY. She only said that they want to solidify their position. The word "early" was in reference to the lawyers framing.
You misread the question and thought it wanted something NOT in the text...
I really like Kevin's explaination it matches with my line of thinking