JY or Kevin if you don’t mind i’d love to know when I should be aggressive as JY was in question 1, opposed to leaving 2 answer choices like this. I felt like the other answer choice in the first question for passage A was something that could definitely be left as a potential answer.
@Endritkasumaj He's being more or less the same for all of these questions in terms of aggressiveness. As @Patni stated, both AC B and C are present in A, that's why he didn't eliminate them.
Isn't the passage saying that political allegiances must be set aside to achieve qualities such as balance and evenhandedness? In that case, you'd be able to eliminate C because it isn't saying that in order to achieve objectivity you must set aside political allegiances, even if that makes practical sense.
if opbjectivity is an "ideal" wouldn't that imply that few historians could achieve it? Or would rejecting answer A be an example of being aggressive in selecting answer choices?
There's a LawHub feature (also present in the 7Sage tester) that allows you X out an answer. This is usually what people use to mark that they've already eliminate an answer.
how can passage A indicate that objectivity is essential for historians when the passage itself makes explicit reference to a type of historian (relativists) for whom objectivity is NOT essential? The passage doesn't really discuss all historians, it discusses Objective Historians
14 comments
"uh he he I don't know"
@ZachistheLawyerinCharge he he
JY or Kevin if you don’t mind i’d love to know when I should be aggressive as JY was in question 1, opposed to leaving 2 answer choices like this. I felt like the other answer choice in the first question for passage A was something that could definitely be left as a potential answer.
@Endritkasumaj In the first question of Passage A, only (B) can be found in the text.
(A) not mentioned
(C) not discussed
(D) author makes no point of this
(E) not discussed
Whereas, in this question, two of the answer choices (in my mind) are explicitly stated, meaning we have zero idea until we read Passage B.
@Endritkasumaj He's being more or less the same for all of these questions in terms of aggressiveness. As @Patni stated, both AC B and C are present in A, that's why he didn't eliminate them.
I might better suit with sequential approach hence partial POE isn't really bugs me for some reason.
On second thought, I could just do split, and instead of doing partial poe, i could just flag and skip & return after second passage
Isn't the passage saying that political allegiances must be set aside to achieve qualities such as balance and evenhandedness? In that case, you'd be able to eliminate C because it isn't saying that in order to achieve objectivity you must set aside political allegiances, even if that makes practical sense.
@AlexanderAlizadeh woops i understand it now :)
if opbjectivity is an "ideal" wouldn't that imply that few historians could achieve it? Or would rejecting answer A be an example of being aggressive in selecting answer choices?
What is the most efficient way of tracking which answers you've eliminated while taking the LSAT?
LOL. How imperceptive of me. You have greatly improved my experience, good sir!
There's a LawHub feature (also present in the 7Sage tester) that allows you X out an answer. This is usually what people use to mark that they've already eliminate an answer.
how can passage A indicate that objectivity is essential for historians when the passage itself makes explicit reference to a type of historian (relativists) for whom objectivity is NOT essential? The passage doesn't really discuss all historians, it discusses Objective Historians
It uses objective historians as a medium and the benchmark for what all historians ought to be in its very prescriptive argument.
Anyway, this question is asking about the attitude towards objectivity itself, not a subsection of historians that value objectivity first.