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”
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 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.
13
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
25 comments
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”
How does this only support the first perspective? The second perspective that believes in a continuous bombardment also mentions the entire inner system?
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?
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?
How do we know if that statement is what the author is saying?
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?
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 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.