Hi, Kevin! I answered this question correctly within my time target. It wasn't difficult for me to see that A was correct, and that C-E were not realistic answer choices, but I currently have difficulty with eliminating B as an answer choice. I eliminated it simply because it didn't "feel" as strong as A.
The verbal and written explanation provided for eliminating B did NOT help at all. Some of the comments have implied other processes, such as questioning the applicability of simulations to real-world contexts, but I'm not sure if that's how I should be looking at eliminating this choice.
Any detailed explanations from you or anyone advanced in this sect of RC would be appreciated.
@Feitan Let's start with why you think B might be right. (I understand that you think A is better, but if B is alive at all, it must be because you think there is support for the idea that it's an accurate description of what the author means by "the technique is, in fact, effective.") So what is the reason or reasons that you think it sounds potentially correct?
Also, here's a related question: what did you anticipate before going into the answers as the meaning of "the technique is, in fact, effective," and what gave rise to that anticipation?
During the question-answering phase, I anticipated that the answer would mention one or both of these things:
"Jurors would be more inclined to widen their perspective — not necessarily be more favorable — towards a client with baggage,
and/or
Those jurors would be more likely to be resistant/unaffected by (— unaffected being defined as being neutral to — opposing testimony about that client's same baggage from the prosecution — said outcome would then be favorable for the defense."
This anticipation left A and B open. I then chose A because it felt like it fit the bill for this anticipation better. B stating "reliable in courtroom settings" felt wrong given the sentence preceding with "actual trials." Nothing about counterarguments landed with me since when a defense attorney is "stealing thunder", their presentation can counterargue/introduce a counterargument (usually does) to a prosecutor's prospective argument, or something filed pre-trial/statement made in media in a flashy case.
C and E don't fit this bill, and D centered on "focus," which wasn't directly the point of the phrasing.
@Feitan Those sound like good anticipations. The issue here is getting clear on exactly what the question is asking. It's not asking, "What's supported by the passage?' or "What would the author agree with" or "What would the author consider to be part of the technique's effectiveness"?
It's asking what the author meant by that specific phrase "the technique is, in fact effective"?
Consider this argument:
This training program will make you an effective basketball player on offense. First, it will improve your 3-point shooting ability. Second, it will help you with getting better shots. Third, it will increase your ability to finish layups when contested. Fourth, it will improve the speed of your shooting form so you can get shots off more quickly against defenses closing in on you.
What does the author of this argument mean by "make you an effective basketball player on offense"?
(A) helps you score more points
(B) help you finish layups more effectively
(B) isn't correct, because it's not what the author means by the phrase "make you an effective basketball player on offense." Sure, layups were one part of the evidence for how the program will make you better on offense. But that's not the meaning of the author's use of "effective." It's one thing that the author thinks goes into becoming more effective, but it's not what the author means by using that phrase.
Consider another argument:
"Studying will help you get into law school. First, it will help you get more LR questions correct. Second, it will help you get more RC questions correct. "
What does the author mean by "help you get into law school"?
(A) increase your chances of getting admitted into law school
(B) get more RC questions correct
(B) isn't correct, because that's not what the author means by "help you get into law school." Sure, getting more RC questions correct is one thing mentioned as support for how studying will help you get into law school. But it's not the meaning of the phase "help you get into law school."
Does this make sense? That's the central reason I'd move on from (B). Why would "help introduce counterarguments" be the meaning of "effective" when "effective", as you anticipated, means something more like "be more resistant to bad info about the client." Counterarguments is such a specific aspect of being resistant to bad info; sure, it was mentioned, but that's not the meaning of "effective" in the way the author used it at the begining of the 2nd paragraph.
The courtroom settings issue may or may not be another way to get rid of (B). I'm not saying that's a wrong reason to get rid of it. But to me that's a small thing that I wouldn't really need to think about to get rid of (B) confidently.
Another reason you can eliminate AC B is because the studies being referenced in the question/phrase are specifically the "studies involving simulated trial situations" (i.e., not including the psychological explanations).
Most of the ACs can be eliminated just based on a few red-flag words. For example, "invariably" in C (way too absolute), "forcefully" or "focus" in D, and "dramatically" in E make all those choices basically wrong/off-topic from the jump
some of these explanations are not helpful. I'm finding this especially to be true of RC questions. Most of the explanations can be boiled down to, "this answer is correct because it is correct."
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge Is there something about this specific question you're still confused about? Another answer you think is correct? Or something about the right answer you think is not correct?
I wonder if we can eliminate (B) and (D) because they came up much later than this quote, so that the author couldn't have intended them? Would this be a valid strategy? Thank you!
@FearlessAnimatedThanks B is wrong because stealing thunder doesn't introduce counterarguments; it allows jurors to create their own when warned. D is incorrect because the passage doesn't mention anywhere that stealing thunder captures jurors' attention more; in fact, it can make the facts introduced less emphasized as they hear them multiple times. A also came up later in the text, but it's still related to how studies prove the technique effective. A lot of times, the LSAT writers specifically put the context later on in the passage to trick you!
Could E also be eliminated because it says “more often than not,” or is that not really an issue? That was the main reason I eliminated it quickly, because I didn’t think there was enough support for the technique to be effective to that degree.
@bhaviland That was part of my rationale for not choosing E. I thought B had similarly "strong" language that wasn't quite justified when it used the term: "reliable means." I don't think we know if using the technique will be reliable or not. Probable? Perhaps. But reliable? I don't think so. I thought the "inclines" in A was appropriate strength.
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.
26 comments
this was my second win after this whole section...
Hi, Kevin! I answered this question correctly within my time target. It wasn't difficult for me to see that A was correct, and that C-E were not realistic answer choices, but I currently have difficulty with eliminating B as an answer choice. I eliminated it simply because it didn't "feel" as strong as A.
The verbal and written explanation provided for eliminating B did NOT help at all. Some of the comments have implied other processes, such as questioning the applicability of simulations to real-world contexts, but I'm not sure if that's how I should be looking at eliminating this choice.
Any detailed explanations from you or anyone advanced in this sect of RC would be appreciated.
@Feitan Let's start with why you think B might be right. (I understand that you think A is better, but if B is alive at all, it must be because you think there is support for the idea that it's an accurate description of what the author means by "the technique is, in fact, effective.") So what is the reason or reasons that you think it sounds potentially correct?
Also, here's a related question: what did you anticipate before going into the answers as the meaning of "the technique is, in fact, effective," and what gave rise to that anticipation?
@Kevin_Lin My answers to your questions.
During the question-answering phase, I anticipated that the answer would mention one or both of these things:
"Jurors would be more inclined to widen their perspective — not necessarily be more favorable — towards a client with baggage,
and/or
Those jurors would be more likely to be resistant/unaffected by (— unaffected being defined as being neutral to — opposing testimony about that client's same baggage from the prosecution — said outcome would then be favorable for the defense."
This anticipation left A and B open. I then chose A because it felt like it fit the bill for this anticipation better. B stating "reliable in courtroom settings" felt wrong given the sentence preceding with "actual trials." Nothing about counterarguments landed with me since when a defense attorney is "stealing thunder", their presentation can counterargue/introduce a counterargument (usually does) to a prosecutor's prospective argument, or something filed pre-trial/statement made in media in a flashy case.
C and E don't fit this bill, and D centered on "focus," which wasn't directly the point of the phrasing.
@Feitan Those sound like good anticipations. The issue here is getting clear on exactly what the question is asking. It's not asking, "What's supported by the passage?' or "What would the author agree with" or "What would the author consider to be part of the technique's effectiveness"?
It's asking what the author meant by that specific phrase "the technique is, in fact effective"?
Consider this argument:
This training program will make you an effective basketball player on offense. First, it will improve your 3-point shooting ability. Second, it will help you with getting better shots. Third, it will increase your ability to finish layups when contested. Fourth, it will improve the speed of your shooting form so you can get shots off more quickly against defenses closing in on you.
What does the author of this argument mean by "make you an effective basketball player on offense"?
(A) helps you score more points
(B) help you finish layups more effectively
(B) isn't correct, because it's not what the author means by the phrase "make you an effective basketball player on offense." Sure, layups were one part of the evidence for how the program will make you better on offense. But that's not the meaning of the author's use of "effective." It's one thing that the author thinks goes into becoming more effective, but it's not what the author means by using that phrase.
Consider another argument:
"Studying will help you get into law school. First, it will help you get more LR questions correct. Second, it will help you get more RC questions correct. "
What does the author mean by "help you get into law school"?
(A) increase your chances of getting admitted into law school
(B) get more RC questions correct
(B) isn't correct, because that's not what the author means by "help you get into law school." Sure, getting more RC questions correct is one thing mentioned as support for how studying will help you get into law school. But it's not the meaning of the phase "help you get into law school."
Does this make sense? That's the central reason I'd move on from (B). Why would "help introduce counterarguments" be the meaning of "effective" when "effective", as you anticipated, means something more like "be more resistant to bad info about the client." Counterarguments is such a specific aspect of being resistant to bad info; sure, it was mentioned, but that's not the meaning of "effective" in the way the author used it at the begining of the 2nd paragraph.
The courtroom settings issue may or may not be another way to get rid of (B). I'm not saying that's a wrong reason to get rid of it. But to me that's a small thing that I wouldn't really need to think about to get rid of (B) confidently.
Another reason you can eliminate AC B is because the studies being referenced in the question/phrase are specifically the "studies involving simulated trial situations" (i.e., not including the psychological explanations).
Most of the ACs can be eliminated just based on a few red-flag words. For example, "invariably" in C (way too absolute), "forcefully" or "focus" in D, and "dramatically" in E make all those choices basically wrong/off-topic from the jump
This helps my speed a lot
some of these explanations are not helpful. I'm finding this especially to be true of RC questions. Most of the explanations can be boiled down to, "this answer is correct because it is correct."
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge Is there something about this specific question you're still confused about? Another answer you think is correct? Or something about the right answer you think is not correct?
@Kevin_Lin nah, I was just frustrated I missed a layup question. All good now
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge LMAO
3 min overtime because my fiance decided to take a call and speak very loudly >:(
this has been so rough omg I literally got this wrong and the question sounds so simple
havent gotten a single one rightttt
same lol
Oh goody gumdrops!
I wonder if we can eliminate (B) and (D) because they came up much later than this quote, so that the author couldn't have intended them? Would this be a valid strategy? Thank you!
Im sure slipping jimmy could probably give some clarification
@FearlessAnimatedThanks B is wrong because stealing thunder doesn't introduce counterarguments; it allows jurors to create their own when warned. D is incorrect because the passage doesn't mention anywhere that stealing thunder captures jurors' attention more; in fact, it can make the facts introduced less emphasized as they hear them multiple times. A also came up later in the text, but it's still related to how studies prove the technique effective. A lot of times, the LSAT writers specifically put the context later on in the passage to trick you!
@FearlessAnimatedThanks interesting thought. I'd love to know the answer
number threeee
i have gotten 50/50 betweeen right anwser and wrong and picked wrong 6/6 lmaoo
these answer choices hurt my head
Could E also be eliminated because it says “more often than not,” or is that not really an issue? That was the main reason I eliminated it quickly, because I didn’t think there was enough support for the technique to be effective to that degree.
I think that's good reasoning.
@bhaviland That was part of my rationale for not choosing E. I thought B had similarly "strong" language that wasn't quite justified when it used the term: "reliable means." I don't think we know if using the technique will be reliable or not. Probable? Perhaps. But reliable? I don't think so. I thought the "inclines" in A was appropriate strength.