I have been struggling with grasping RC the entire way through. However, when I observe the "aggressive" approach JY takes with these comparative questions, I wonder if this aggressiveness can be applied to all RC. Or is it too risky?
For E, I took "a historians willingness to accord respectful considerations to rival interpretations" too close to that of being a judge and hearing out both sides. Anyone else slip up with this?
C fits better because the discussion of facts. E might relate to the idea of a judge, but a judge is meant to be neutral, not have rival interpretations (implying ones own strong view opposing an interpretation). A willingness to accord respectful consideration means you have a separate view but will hear someone out - its not quite a neutral position that is not an advocate. Hope this helps!
Wow this is gonna save me time. Took me about 12 seconds to answer this. Noticed I would go back into the passages and try to find the answer since I can’t remember. skipping sequential honestly.
Oh wow, I really wouldn't have thought to cross (A) during this part of the Split method. I mean, I still got this right after reading passage B, but I suppose I could've answered this without passage B. Not sure. 7sage might be a bit bold for me here hahahahaa.
Still not sold on this because I am timid (anxious lol) and don’t get passages mixed up, but I’ll still try this out. I got this correct, but the previous one wrong by being too timid
Ngl im gonna skip the sequential lessons after this one. Ive already noticed i have trouble jumbling both passages in my head answering prep test questions
dude, i like this method a lot....i never would have thought to focus on one passage and knock out as many questions as i can before even glancing at the 2nd passage!!! i am shooketh.
Is it really possible to eliminate E based on only this passage? Doesn't the "balance and evenhandedness" or being a "neutral judge" imply willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations?
I don't think that fits, because a judge is supposed to be neutral. So, in that sense, they shouldn't have "rival" interpretations -- they should have an interpretation that fits the facts. Passage A doesn't envision a historian adopting side X and debating side Not X. It envisions a historian looking at the facts and forming the view X. As the historian learns more maybe they need to modify X. And, if some people happen to believe Not X, that's simply a view that doesn't fit the facts. Whether or not we need to respect the Not X view and think about its arguments isn't a part of Passage A. (But it is a part of Passage B.)
Not at all. "... neutral judge" refers to seeing things objectively and so does "... balance and evenhandedness." Neither of them imply that one must be respectful of others' interpretations. You can look at things and people's opinions from an objective standpoint and still be a dick about it
Similar question but about A - can we eliminate it without looking at passage B? Could 'method of analysis' be interpreted to be just 'a neutral / dispassionate one'? Would you say my doubt of this means I don't have the stomach for the split method or this a normal doubt until you really get the hang of it?
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.
28 comments
identify = strong stated, already picked c because a stated letting go of favored methods
Uh... there's no way I'm going back to the Sequential approach lmao
I have been struggling with grasping RC the entire way through. However, when I observe the "aggressive" approach JY takes with these comparative questions, I wonder if this aggressiveness can be applied to all RC. Or is it too risky?
For E, I took "a historians willingness to accord respectful considerations to rival interpretations" too close to that of being a judge and hearing out both sides. Anyone else slip up with this?
C fits better because the discussion of facts. E might relate to the idea of a judge, but a judge is meant to be neutral, not have rival interpretations (implying ones own strong view opposing an interpretation). A willingness to accord respectful consideration means you have a separate view but will hear someone out - its not quite a neutral position that is not an advocate. Hope this helps!
I love you JY
this method is magical
Wow, I was skeptical of this approach at first. But I'm starting to see the advantages!
@springmoon83 Same!
best approach haha
holy shit
this method is insane
My mind is blown
I was already using split approach, but changing the question stem, to apply to specifically passage A or B, is a game changer!
Wow this is gonna save me time. Took me about 12 seconds to answer this. Noticed I would go back into the passages and try to find the answer since I can’t remember. skipping sequential honestly.
Oh wow, I really wouldn't have thought to cross (A) during this part of the Split method. I mean, I still got this right after reading passage B, but I suppose I could've answered this without passage B. Not sure. 7sage might be a bit bold for me here hahahahaa.
I'm LOVING this approach
Still not sold on this because I am timid (anxious lol) and don’t get passages mixed up, but I’ll still try this out. I got this correct, but the previous one wrong by being too timid
Ngl im gonna skip the sequential lessons after this one. Ive already noticed i have trouble jumbling both passages in my head answering prep test questions
Same lol.
This method is sooooo GOATED! THANK YOU!!!!
This is going to save me so much time. Thank you
dude, i like this method a lot....i never would have thought to focus on one passage and knock out as many questions as i can before even glancing at the 2nd passage!!! i am shooketh.
Is it really possible to eliminate E based on only this passage? Doesn't the "balance and evenhandedness" or being a "neutral judge" imply willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations?
I don't think that fits, because a judge is supposed to be neutral. So, in that sense, they shouldn't have "rival" interpretations -- they should have an interpretation that fits the facts. Passage A doesn't envision a historian adopting side X and debating side Not X. It envisions a historian looking at the facts and forming the view X. As the historian learns more maybe they need to modify X. And, if some people happen to believe Not X, that's simply a view that doesn't fit the facts. Whether or not we need to respect the Not X view and think about its arguments isn't a part of Passage A. (But it is a part of Passage B.)
Not at all. "... neutral judge" refers to seeing things objectively and so does "... balance and evenhandedness." Neither of them imply that one must be respectful of others' interpretations. You can look at things and people's opinions from an objective standpoint and still be a dick about it
Similar question but about A - can we eliminate it without looking at passage B? Could 'method of analysis' be interpreted to be just 'a neutral / dispassionate one'? Would you say my doubt of this means I don't have the stomach for the split method or this a normal doubt until you really get the hang of it?
Where in the passage does it say anything about historians' willingness to borrow methods of analysis from other disciplines when evaluating evidence?