How do you know that the first perspective talks about a short event? Because the second disagrees and mentions that it was over the course of a billion years? I feel like we don't have enough information to assume that because /long = short.
idk if its just me, the low res summarys acc hinder me, my times much better and I get the answer right really fast when I just read and go back lol. Idk it just doesn't work with my brain ig
@AngelicaAnzaldi I think it's because we don't have a pen/annotation. The video circles, underlines, and annotates, but we only have 3 different highlighters. It's much more brainpower to make the low res summary. I just highlight key terms/points.
@chrisabulius ya same! I feel like convincing myself I had to do it a certain way stresses me out, esp if it's not ideal for me. I remember better if I just read it, highlight, instead of forcing myself to low res every paragraph.
I came up with a totally different low-res summary before Kevin started breaking it down, but I think this is still understandable and maybe even short enough to write on test day. I don;t I won't have to rely on writing stuff down by then.
1) intro
ctx.
2. ast.
period
short time-only local
It gives me enough information that I can just recant the arguments in my head.
If a Passage can be described as Phenomenon-Hypothesis, Problem-Analysis, or Spotlight, I'd prefer to focus on those styles over Critique or Debate, because those are more specific patterns. It's not wrong to think of this as Critique or Debate, but it's more useful to recognize that the author is discussing different causal hypotheses.
@Kevin Lin To clarify, it is possible to have a critique/debate passage that doesn't fall into any of the three engagement styles? I know that a passage can fall into both perspective/engagement but can it only be one? Similarly can one of the three engagement styles not fall into any single position/critique debate types?
What would you think about using the highlighting tool for marking the breaks in really large paragraphs? That way it is more visually distinctive and it's much quicker to go back and find your place. I hear that the tool can be a little clunky and that it might sacrifice too much time to try and use it. What are your thoughts?
I like it, but as with anything involving LawHub features it requires practice. There have been reports that the highlight feature doesn't work great during the test, so I wouldn't want to rely on a technique that requires long, precise highlights. But using a single color and highlight a few words to signify breaks in a paragraph sounds like it could be very helpful.
This is just a mental process. Most people don't mark anything down on scratch paper. Some people do find it helpful, though. This may be worth experimenting with to find out what works best for you.
Do you know, if we do the paper test method, if we can underline certain words in the passage as we take the test or draw notes on the side for the low res?
If you qualify for paper and pencil accommodations, then I think you should be able to write over the test. At least, that's how it was back when everyone did paper and pencil. I can't find anything on the website that explicitly confirms this though. Worth asking LSAC about if you have this accommodation.
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.
37 comments
boooooooooooooooof is what i got from this article tbh
How do you know that the first perspective talks about a short event? Because the second disagrees and mentions that it was over the course of a billion years? I feel like we don't have enough information to assume that because /long = short.
why am I struggling
@AnaColuma cuz its hard. we all are
"They can't scare us!" Channeling this energy haha
idk if its just me, the low res summarys acc hinder me, my times much better and I get the answer right really fast when I just read and go back lol. Idk it just doesn't work with my brain ig
@AngelicaAnzaldi I think it's because we don't have a pen/annotation. The video circles, underlines, and annotates, but we only have 3 different highlighters. It's much more brainpower to make the low res summary. I just highlight key terms/points.
@chrisabulius ya same! I feel like convincing myself I had to do it a certain way stresses me out, esp if it's not ideal for me. I remember better if I just read it, highlight, instead of forcing myself to low res every paragraph.
(1) make a low-resolution summary
diff theories trying to explain the evidence from the moon samples and size of craters.
(2) identify different perspectives and the author’s attitude
sci 1 - LHB result of big asteroid désintégration
sci 2 - disagree and say latter impacts obliterated evidence of earlier impacts
sci 3 - brief duration and existed between earth and moon
(3) predict the direction of the next paragraph.
offer authors own opinion
astronomy for athletes LOL
I would indeed expect the moon to be peppered with all kinds of crater's.
Anyone else having fun with this stuff or is it just me?
hellian
Now I'm thinking about the HBO series "From Earth to the Moon"
Group 1: One big boom, because big craters.
Group 2: Many small booms, later booms covered up earlier booms.
Group 3: One mid-size boom, because boom was too short and localized to be super-big.
Kevin's explanations: 5 BIG BOOMS!!! BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM
I was waiting for this comment lol
I deeply hate any science-related passages :(
I came up with a totally different low-res summary before Kevin started breaking it down, but I think this is still understandable and maybe even short enough to write on test day. I don;t I won't have to rely on writing stuff down by then.
1) intro
ctx.
2. ast.
period
short time-only local
It gives me enough information that I can just recant the arguments in my head.
"I'm not aware of God the janitor" made me laugh out loud
Wow. I tried doing my own low-res summaries for this passage. This was insanely hard for me to understand. Ugh.
How can we distinguish between the critique/debate and phen-hypo style for this kind of passage?
If a Passage can be described as Phenomenon-Hypothesis, Problem-Analysis, or Spotlight, I'd prefer to focus on those styles over Critique or Debate, because those are more specific patterns. It's not wrong to think of this as Critique or Debate, but it's more useful to recognize that the author is discussing different causal hypotheses.
@Kevin Lin To clarify, it is possible to have a critique/debate passage that doesn't fall into any of the three engagement styles? I know that a passage can fall into both perspective/engagement but can it only be one? Similarly can one of the three engagement styles not fall into any single position/critique debate types?
@anjjredd Yes, it's possible. There are some passages out there that are hard to view as problem/solution phenomenon/hypothesis or spotlight.
What would you think about using the highlighting tool for marking the breaks in really large paragraphs? That way it is more visually distinctive and it's much quicker to go back and find your place. I hear that the tool can be a little clunky and that it might sacrifice too much time to try and use it. What are your thoughts?
I like it, but as with anything involving LawHub features it requires practice. There have been reports that the highlight feature doesn't work great during the test, so I wouldn't want to rely on a technique that requires long, precise highlights. But using a single color and highlight a few words to signify breaks in a paragraph sounds like it could be very helpful.
Science RC Passages are like Xandlebars, got my eyes heavy with no backwoods
If anyone's looking for a laugh my low-res summary was:
Group 1- big boom and boom everywhere
Group 2- many small boom all the time
Group 3- big but constrained boom
Me like caveman speech.
When you do these paragraph breaks, are you eventually supposed to do them in your head like low res summaries, or physically mark up the page?
This is just a mental process. Most people don't mark anything down on scratch paper. Some people do find it helpful, though. This may be worth experimenting with to find out what works best for you.
Do you know, if we do the paper test method, if we can underline certain words in the passage as we take the test or draw notes on the side for the low res?
If you qualify for paper and pencil accommodations, then I think you should be able to write over the test. At least, that's how it was back when everyone did paper and pencil. I can't find anything on the website that explicitly confirms this though. Worth asking LSAC about if you have this accommodation.
I appreciate the response, thank you
Low Res
Hypo 1 - Cataclysm and Solar system
Hypo 2 - /Cataclysm and Solar system
Hypo 3 - Cataclysm and /Solar system
Thank you!!
I need to memorize like this!