Yeah I did not like this question. I read D and remembered that scientists were interested from discovering major craters on the moon and an "analysis of rock samples." I just do not understand how anyone just concludes that D is supported???
I got every question right but are these time goals seeming impossible right now to anyone else. Even when I am half zoned out and guess only like 60% sure I will be 5 seconds over...
this makes literally zero sense, how does this relate to the scientist's interests at all? maybe it could be the reason, but there is nothing in the passage to indicate that.
Sometimes my intuition and logic seem so spot on, like when I get an abstract question / answer like this one correct. But then other times I miss on much simpler question / answer combos and it makes me question everything lol
lol this question and answer is just an opinion...
20
[deleted]
Monday, Jun 23, 2025
Not seeing how B is wrong. He said in the video that rocks striking earth is not talked about anywhere else, that is wrong, it is in paragraph three. He does address this in the written section, he says “But at no point in the passage does the author imply any belief that there is a lack of Earth-based evidence.” I quibble with the fact that the author doesn’t imply this; he may not say it, but I think he implies it.
The passage’s last sentence says, “However, to determine the pervasiveness of the LHB, scientists will need to locate many more such rocks and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. What are the “such rocks” they are referring to? I believe the most reasonable assumption is the only rock talked about; a rock found on Earth from Mars. If they need to find many more, that means they lack required amount to prove something or lack evidence.
You could counter and say that the idea they are talking about with the phrase “such rocks” is the more general idea of rocks found on one planet that originated on another. Not necessarily those found on Earth, but a Venus rock found on Mars for example. I think this is a bit of an unwarranted stretch, because of the next part of the last sentence, “and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. ‘perhaps’ is doing a lot of work for my argument in this sentence. It means that scientists wouldn’t necessarily have to obtain those surface samples to prove the pervasiveness of the LHB. How would you collect rocks on Mars that came from Venus without surface samples? You could say that a surface sample is something different than a rock sample, but what reason do we have to split that hair? Nothing I can find from the article. If we need more ‘such rocks’ but don’t necessarily need rocks from other planets, the only rocks we are left with are rocks found on Earth.
So, if we don’t need evidence from other planets surfaces but it is necessary for us to have evidence of many more ‘such rocks’ (and those such rocks are the ones found on earth) to find out the pervasiveness of LHB we get in lawgic: determine pervasiveness of LHB -> locating many more such rocks. We know they haven’t located many more rocks or else the author wouldn’t have brought it up our lack of ‘such rocks’ so contrapose to: we have not located many more such rocks -> we cannot determine the pervasiveness of LHB.
#feedback #help I chose E because while the video explanation states that this piece of info doesn't support dating the LHB, I would disagree. I feel as though it could be read and interpreted as, since we know this sort of vigorous bombardment would lead to a lack of life on a planet, we can assume that this happened 4 billion years ago as life on Earth did not start until 4 billion years ago. I realize that these are indirect assumptions, but I thought more of than not, we have to apply these indirect assumptions.
I did the same! But I think it was too big of an assumption. As Kevin said, we already know the date, and that isn't in doubt. So there's no need for additional support.
I'm curious if we could eliminate (A) just by chronology - because at the first paragraph, the author has not gotten to particular theories, he couldn't have supported it?#feedback
In the context of this passage, this makes sense to me, but I think it's only because of how the rest of the passage was written. I don't want to rule out the possibility that in a different kind of passage, something at the beginning could be intended to support a view that comes later. I don't recall any actual examples of this from LSAT RC, but I'm just being careful.
Example:
Apples can be green.
Oranges are typically orange.
Bananas are yellow.
Strawberries are red.
... (it goes on like this for a while)
So, there are fruits of every color in the rainbow.
Here, the first sentence is support for the very last sentence, even though at the time we're reading the first sentence we have no idea what the ultimate point will be.
I originally had E but switched to D after rereading the first half of the opening sentence of the passage --
"A vigorous debate in astronomy centers on an epoch in planetary history"
Referencing planetary history, and since the moon is not a planet, it would then make sense that scientists are interested in studying the LHB because of its relevance to our planet
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
46 comments
i chose c lol...
The answer MAKES NO SENSE WHAAAA
I read the sentence like A happened B didn't but B wasn't affected, but why. I'm not sure if that was the right way to think about it.
angry
D was the one that I was positive was NOT correct. Make it make sense…
I got everything else correct but this lol. crazy
Yeah I did not like this question. I read D and remembered that scientists were interested from discovering major craters on the moon and an "analysis of rock samples." I just do not understand how anyone just concludes that D is supported???
idk why i chose B at first and A in BR if i literally KNEW D was the right answered but second guessed myself so bad
The question that makes the least sense to me so far...
@Faye agreed
i am so much better at these RC passages compared to single point / single perspective
I got every question right but are these time goals seeming impossible right now to anyone else. Even when I am half zoned out and guess only like 60% sure I will be 5 seconds over...
this makes literally zero sense, how does this relate to the scientist's interests at all? maybe it could be the reason, but there is nothing in the passage to indicate that.
Sometimes my intuition and logic seem so spot on, like when I get an abstract question / answer like this one correct. But then other times I miss on much simpler question / answer combos and it makes me question everything lol
Ouch
How is answer choice D supported at all in the passage?
@HilarySackor I know, terrible question
Couldn't you argue that when it says should have struck earth, that this is support for the theory that the lhb should have struck earth?
why the hell am i getting qs right only in BR????
how the fuck did i get this many wrong after literally having kevin babywalk me through the entire passage
lol this question and answer is just an opinion...
Not seeing how B is wrong. He said in the video that rocks striking earth is not talked about anywhere else, that is wrong, it is in paragraph three. He does address this in the written section, he says “But at no point in the passage does the author imply any belief that there is a lack of Earth-based evidence.” I quibble with the fact that the author doesn’t imply this; he may not say it, but I think he implies it.
The passage’s last sentence says, “However, to determine the pervasiveness of the LHB, scientists will need to locate many more such rocks and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. What are the “such rocks” they are referring to? I believe the most reasonable assumption is the only rock talked about; a rock found on Earth from Mars. If they need to find many more, that means they lack required amount to prove something or lack evidence.
You could counter and say that the idea they are talking about with the phrase “such rocks” is the more general idea of rocks found on one planet that originated on another. Not necessarily those found on Earth, but a Venus rock found on Mars for example. I think this is a bit of an unwarranted stretch, because of the next part of the last sentence, “and perhaps obtain surface samples from other planets in the inner solar system.”. ‘perhaps’ is doing a lot of work for my argument in this sentence. It means that scientists wouldn’t necessarily have to obtain those surface samples to prove the pervasiveness of the LHB. How would you collect rocks on Mars that came from Venus without surface samples? You could say that a surface sample is something different than a rock sample, but what reason do we have to split that hair? Nothing I can find from the article. If we need more ‘such rocks’ but don’t necessarily need rocks from other planets, the only rocks we are left with are rocks found on Earth.
So, if we don’t need evidence from other planets surfaces but it is necessary for us to have evidence of many more ‘such rocks’ (and those such rocks are the ones found on earth) to find out the pervasiveness of LHB we get in lawgic: determine pervasiveness of LHB -> locating many more such rocks. We know they haven’t located many more rocks or else the author wouldn’t have brought it up our lack of ‘such rocks’ so contrapose to: we have not located many more such rocks -> we cannot determine the pervasiveness of LHB.
@unknown Can you describe your interpretation of having the purpose of "questioning the lack of evidence"?
I locked in on this so quickly.
"don't overthink it. don't agonize it."
thank you Kevin, I will be saying this to myself during every question from now on
#feedback #help I chose E because while the video explanation states that this piece of info doesn't support dating the LHB, I would disagree. I feel as though it could be read and interpreted as, since we know this sort of vigorous bombardment would lead to a lack of life on a planet, we can assume that this happened 4 billion years ago as life on Earth did not start until 4 billion years ago. I realize that these are indirect assumptions, but I thought more of than not, we have to apply these indirect assumptions.
I did the same! But I think it was too big of an assumption. As Kevin said, we already know the date, and that isn't in doubt. So there's no need for additional support.
I'm curious if we could eliminate (A) just by chronology - because at the first paragraph, the author has not gotten to particular theories, he couldn't have supported it?#feedback
In the context of this passage, this makes sense to me, but I think it's only because of how the rest of the passage was written. I don't want to rule out the possibility that in a different kind of passage, something at the beginning could be intended to support a view that comes later. I don't recall any actual examples of this from LSAT RC, but I'm just being careful.
Example:
Apples can be green.
Oranges are typically orange.
Bananas are yellow.
Strawberries are red.
... (it goes on like this for a while)
So, there are fruits of every color in the rainbow.
Here, the first sentence is support for the very last sentence, even though at the time we're reading the first sentence we have no idea what the ultimate point will be.
I originally had E but switched to D after rereading the first half of the opening sentence of the passage --
"A vigorous debate in astronomy centers on an epoch in planetary history"
Referencing planetary history, and since the moon is not a planet, it would then make sense that scientists are interested in studying the LHB because of its relevance to our planet
That is a great catch!