someone please explain how the first sentence in the last paragraph about “new support” is distinguished as the authors opinion. I see no difference between that statement and the other claims. To me it doesn’t jump out as “this is what I think”
@ChristopherAndrade Would it help to note that in describing something as "support," the author is assessing what that evidence does? So the signal of author opinion is the characterization of something as "support."
"The recent study supports X."
"The recent study says it provides support for X."
Notice that in 2, the author is only reporting what the study says. But we don't know whether the author agrees that there really is support for X contained in the study.
But in 1, the author is the one characterizing what the study does as "support" for X.
How does this only support the first perspective? The second perspective that believes in a continuous bombardment also mentions the entire inner system?
i thought he was lying when he said predicting would keep you engaged (bc how could i ever be engaged in rc) but when i read "new support" i said oooh tea
I'm sorry, is he saying he took "astronomy for presidents"? And if he is, what exactly distinguishes astronomy in general from astronomy for chief executives?
Tone shift at the end, thats the difference. Guessing a question or two will speak to that, trip us up with language that goes too far in authors support. Woof.
im a little confused as to the argument being made in the last paragraph about the mars rock.
they state that the rock is 4 billion years old, and thus it must have come from mars to earth at around that time. but couldn't a rock be 4 billion years old, still stay on mars, and then only dislodge 1 billion years ago? and then when tested, it would still be a 4 billion year old rock...
how is the fact that it is 4 billion years old evidence for it being knocked from the planet at the same time the moon is experiencing LHB?
I think this is one of those cases where it doesn't "prove" so much as it suggests this as a possibility. If it was a younger rock, it wouldn't be classified as from that time period. It is a bit of a weakness in the author's argument, though.
Just out of curiosity, though, I did go digging, and the one meteorite from Mars that was about that age appears to have come from a later impact dislodging it about 1.5 billion years ago, so your thoughts are definitely sound.
In this case, I would encourage you to not think this deeply into it!
The author told us explicitly the Mars rock is evidence of Mars experiencing the LHB. I would take their word for it unless we are deliberately asked to call into question that specific phenomena.
In that case, then could you start introducing alternate hypotheses and causal factors.
I just realized that I've been annotating incorrectly all this time. Instead of trying to give low-res summary for every paragraph. I really should be giving a low-res summary for every "chunk" of passage. Chunks of passage are bits of the passage that are separated by natural passage breaks.
I started underlining the first word where a paragraph breaks (like switches gears or perspectives) to help me keep track of this! So far it's been looking to be effective
I tried your method of only highlighting the first word of the new sentence. I think because of how short it is, it's easier to distinguish from names and short clauses that I might also highlight. I wish I you can highlight one letter. That would be the easiest way to see the breaks imo.
Being able to highlight/underline one letter would be much better. I hope that’s something the test writers allow in the future! But we shall make do! :)
I use a very similar method. I highlight the key sentence in every chunk, and I highlight the last word and the first word between chunks to indicate the passage break. I don't switch color, since it takes too much time.
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.
29 comments
bro i hate science passages
does anyone else write out full sentences for low res summaries at least for the first part ??
my eyes are glazing over trying to grasp this passage
someone please explain how the first sentence in the last paragraph about “new support” is distinguished as the authors opinion. I see no difference between that statement and the other claims. To me it doesn’t jump out as “this is what I think”
@ChristopherAndrade Would it help to note that in describing something as "support," the author is assessing what that evidence does? So the signal of author opinion is the characterization of something as "support."
"The recent study supports X."
"The recent study says it provides support for X."
Notice that in 2, the author is only reporting what the study says. But we don't know whether the author agrees that there really is support for X contained in the study.
But in 1, the author is the one characterizing what the study does as "support" for X.
How does this only support the first perspective? The second perspective that believes in a continuous bombardment also mentions the entire inner system?
@Xexne198 I have this question too!
Why would they choose this passage as an intro for Pheno-Hyp?? I am so lost
(1) make a low-resolution summary
one type of rock loacted on earth supports the 3rd hypothesis of late bombardment and that rock came from mars
(2) identify different perspectives and the author’s attitude.
authour says that in order for this evidence to be solid they have to find more such rocks and samples from other planets.
i thought he was lying when he said predicting would keep you engaged (bc how could i ever be engaged in rc) but when i read "new support" i said oooh tea
I HATE ASTRONOMY
I'm sorry, is he saying he took "astronomy for presidents"? And if he is, what exactly distinguishes astronomy in general from astronomy for chief executives?
ILL
How do you know the author is asserting their opinion in the opening lines of this paragraph when the phrasing is so impersonal?
Tone shift at the end, thats the difference. Guessing a question or two will speak to that, trip us up with language that goes too far in authors support. Woof.
Are you all reading the passage in great detail the first time around, if not, is there another method to utilize the time given more efficiently?
Yes - trying to breakdown each sentence and making a short summary after each paragraph
How do we know if that statement is what the author is saying?
If the voice isn't crediting someone else, or referencing a viewpoint - this typically means the author's voice is coming through.
do we know it's the author's perspective because it's not tied to anyone else specifically/ doesn't state that someone else said it?
For the most part, yes.
im a little confused as to the argument being made in the last paragraph about the mars rock.
they state that the rock is 4 billion years old, and thus it must have come from mars to earth at around that time. but couldn't a rock be 4 billion years old, still stay on mars, and then only dislodge 1 billion years ago? and then when tested, it would still be a 4 billion year old rock...
how is the fact that it is 4 billion years old evidence for it being knocked from the planet at the same time the moon is experiencing LHB?
I think this is one of those cases where it doesn't "prove" so much as it suggests this as a possibility. If it was a younger rock, it wouldn't be classified as from that time period. It is a bit of a weakness in the author's argument, though.
Just out of curiosity, though, I did go digging, and the one meteorite from Mars that was about that age appears to have come from a later impact dislodging it about 1.5 billion years ago, so your thoughts are definitely sound.
In this case, I would encourage you to not think this deeply into it!
The author told us explicitly the Mars rock is evidence of Mars experiencing the LHB. I would take their word for it unless we are deliberately asked to call into question that specific phenomena.
In that case, then could you start introducing alternate hypotheses and causal factors.
I just realized that I've been annotating incorrectly all this time. Instead of trying to give low-res summary for every paragraph. I really should be giving a low-res summary for every "chunk" of passage. Chunks of passage are bits of the passage that are separated by natural passage breaks.
I started underlining the first word where a paragraph breaks (like switches gears or perspectives) to help me keep track of this! So far it's been looking to be effective
I tried your method of only highlighting the first word of the new sentence. I think because of how short it is, it's easier to distinguish from names and short clauses that I might also highlight. I wish I you can highlight one letter. That would be the easiest way to see the breaks imo.
Being able to highlight/underline one letter would be much better. I hope that’s something the test writers allow in the future! But we shall make do! :)
I use a very similar method. I highlight the key sentence in every chunk, and I highlight the last word and the first word between chunks to indicate the passage break. I don't switch color, since it takes too much time.