Yeah all of these he eliminates answers that have anything to do with an alternative view (opposing arguments, other sides, etc) and I just don't get that. I'm obviously not as aggressive as he is being, but does that come with time or is it necessary to be that aggressive? I usually can get it down to just two answers. I think that would still make the method useful. IDK.
The beautiful thing about the split strategy is that if you are running out of time, you have a much better chance of getting the correct answer by guessing than any other passage (assuming you were able to read passage A). I always save the comparative passages for last when I take practice test. My RC score has improved thanks to this strategy.
Could you pick E while still blind to Passage B on the idea that E is more strongly supported throughout the passage whereas the reference to judges was only in graph 3?
although whenever I just pick an answer, and then JY leaves two options I worry I'm being too aggressive - even though I've gotten the answer right so far
I think I don't really understand the question stem "the argument is advanced by..."
The argument is that objectivity in historical scholarship is important. How is this argument advanced by identifying obstacles to this objectivity? This seems like an additional/related but tangential point that does not make the argument more true (as in, identifying obstacles to objectivity does not make it more true that objectivity is important).
What exactly does it mean for an argument to be advanced by something else? Advanced =/= supported?
I think of "advanced" as "how does the argument play out?". You're right that identifying obstacles doesn't support the argument directly, but it's a way that the author fleshes out the argument with detail. Most arguments aren't packed exclusively with supporting statements -- they acknowledge counter-arguments, concede points, add tangential exposition, etc. Your job in these questions therefore is to identify these moves the author is making as they lay out their argument.
I'm wondering, just with reading Passage A, can you eliminate AC D based on the word "fields"? Since the passage only mentions ONE field (judiciary)? Is that maybe being too aggressive?
Within the context of the question, "certain other fields" would pertain to both of the "fields" discussed in Passages A and B. That is, assuming if said fields were discussed at all in B, but as of right now we don't know.
Question: Supposing I left two possible ACs at this question, how can I take notes on the LSAT interface so that I can quickly remember which AC I kept after reading passage B? #feedback #help
Kevin's response from 2 videos prior: "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 eliminated an answer."
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.
21 comments
Yeah all of these he eliminates answers that have anything to do with an alternative view (opposing arguments, other sides, etc) and I just don't get that. I'm obviously not as aggressive as he is being, but does that come with time or is it necessary to be that aggressive? I usually can get it down to just two answers. I think that would still make the method useful. IDK.
The beautiful thing about the split strategy is that if you are running out of time, you have a much better chance of getting the correct answer by guessing than any other passage (assuming you were able to read passage A). I always save the comparative passages for last when I take practice test. My RC score has improved thanks to this strategy.
I'm still a little unsure of why the sentence about relativist historians doesn't serve as evidence of C and A
Could you pick E while still blind to Passage B on the idea that E is more strongly supported throughout the passage whereas the reference to judges was only in graph 3?
im doing great in this split approach actually - I'm not even thinking about how there's another passage it's great
although whenever I just pick an answer, and then JY leaves two options I worry I'm being too aggressive - even though I've gotten the answer right so far
@lilypawliczak exactly!
I think I don't really understand the question stem "the argument is advanced by..."
The argument is that objectivity in historical scholarship is important. How is this argument advanced by identifying obstacles to this objectivity? This seems like an additional/related but tangential point that does not make the argument more true (as in, identifying obstacles to objectivity does not make it more true that objectivity is important).
What exactly does it mean for an argument to be advanced by something else? Advanced =/= supported?
#help
I think of "advanced" as "how does the argument play out?". You're right that identifying obstacles doesn't support the argument directly, but it's a way that the author fleshes out the argument with detail. Most arguments aren't packed exclusively with supporting statements -- they acknowledge counter-arguments, concede points, add tangential exposition, etc. Your job in these questions therefore is to identify these moves the author is making as they lay out their argument.
I was between D and E, I questioned myself which AC is a broader view of the authors
I'm wondering, just with reading Passage A, can you eliminate AC D based on the word "fields"? Since the passage only mentions ONE field (judiciary)? Is that maybe being too aggressive?
#help
Within the context of the question, "certain other fields" would pertain to both of the "fields" discussed in Passages A and B. That is, assuming if said fields were discussed at all in B, but as of right now we don't know.
Question: Supposing I left two possible ACs at this question, how can I take notes on the LSAT interface so that I can quickly remember which AC I kept after reading passage B? #feedback #help
Kevin's response from 2 videos prior: "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 eliminated an answer."
you can also save a question like 7 sage. basically you can book mark it
im struggling
Don't struggle bro, give in.
I think you are confusing sufficiency for necessity.
Like give in and quit?
lol, I’m not quitting I’m very much in fact going to make this test my bitch
-