Passage B seems more abstract and grammatically complex than passage A. Do you ever glance at both passages, and choose to go with the "easier" passage or would you just choose the first one?
Author B, by the very use of trying to build up their argument for steelmanning, seems to have taken the argument from Author A and strawmanned it.
How can you argue that someone being neutral seemingly doesn't also look at both sides of information and is able to steelman both sides--thus understanding both sides as Author B says is a positive trait--in order to sift through said information and construct the better reporting of history? If you're taking a political stance, you're letting bias get in the way. If you're not letting bias get in the way, then you just get the same result that Author A was trying to prescribe for. Author A wasn't purporting that historians can't be political whilst also being neutral in their profession but simply that neutrality should come first in the "workplace," wherever that is for a historian.
The last sentence is definitely a strawman rather than an attempt to steelman Author A's argument.
I was able to get all the answers correct on my own with just passage A! Insane! I love this method. I will ofc cross reference on the exam but didn't even know this could be possible!
I really enjoyed the way Kevin's lessons all had a written version of the lesson below the video. That way we could read and analyze the passage on our own before watching the video. #feedback
I've gotten all the questions right by using the split approach! I would have never thought to do this on my own and was anxious to try it but damn it's nice (at least so far lol)
When using the split approach, how much time should we be allotting for reading passage A and going through all the questions? Should we allot 4 minutes (half the total time for the passage) or more time?
How would you recommend keeping track of which questions and answers you need to go back to? I can highlight and underline but don't see how to annotate... Any suggestions would be appreciated!
3
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.
27 comments
The last sentence of Passage B took me out hahaha. Had to read it 3 times, I'm genuinely impressed by the way they write some of these sentences
Based on the first 2 min of the video, should we be looking at the questions first, and then deciding between split and sequential approach? #help
Bro who talks like this
respectfully, what the fuck
this passage was so exhausting to read lol
thank god i am not alone, this whole passage sucks, i dont understand what is the author trying to say like other than "objectivity"
jesus christ what a fucking read
Passage B author wins yapper of the year
No matter how you slice it, if you do the split approach diligently you save time and can bank it elsewhere. BLESS YOU FAM.
loud booing for Passage B
Passage B seems more abstract and grammatically complex than passage A. Do you ever glance at both passages, and choose to go with the "easier" passage or would you just choose the first one?
Author B, by the very use of trying to build up their argument for steelmanning, seems to have taken the argument from Author A and strawmanned it.
How can you argue that someone being neutral seemingly doesn't also look at both sides of information and is able to steelman both sides--thus understanding both sides as Author B says is a positive trait--in order to sift through said information and construct the better reporting of history? If you're taking a political stance, you're letting bias get in the way. If you're not letting bias get in the way, then you just get the same result that Author A was trying to prescribe for. Author A wasn't purporting that historians can't be political whilst also being neutral in their profession but simply that neutrality should come first in the "workplace," wherever that is for a historian.
The last sentence is definitely a strawman rather than an attempt to steelman Author A's argument.
.
Strawman reference #iykyk
I was able to get all the answers correct on my own with just passage A! Insane! I love this method. I will ofc cross reference on the exam but didn't even know this could be possible!
I really enjoyed the way Kevin's lessons all had a written version of the lesson below the video. That way we could read and analyze the passage on our own before watching the video. #feedback
I've gotten all the questions right by using the split approach! I would have never thought to do this on my own and was anxious to try it but damn it's nice (at least so far lol)
When using the split approach, how much time should we be allotting for reading passage A and going through all the questions? Should we allot 4 minutes (half the total time for the passage) or more time?
How would you recommend keeping track of which questions and answers you need to go back to? I can highlight and underline but don't see how to annotate... Any suggestions would be appreciated!