For the split-approach questions: If it's a comparative passage and the question COMPARES passage a and b, should you automatically assume you should come back to the question after reading both?
@ReaganPressley It sounded to me like you could do either, but I feel like I'll probably just wait until the passage. Based on my understanding, you could take a pass at the answers and if there's anything that Passage A didn't state, or have an opinion on, you could get rid of it. But you might only be able to get rid of one answer on a pass but you'd also be able to get an understanding of how the author of Passage A feels before diving into Passage B so that also gives you a bit of a headstart on those answers. But I think it's just up to your preference.
JY says passage A (ie. its author) agrees with (E), but we're technically not looking for the point of disagreement between the author of A and the author of B. We're looking for the point of disagreement between "the kind of objective historian described in passage A" and the author of passage B. We don't know the opinion of objective historians on the statement mentioned in answer choice E. #feedback
#Help is someone able to better explain why A isn't the answer? From my understanding, A is saying that you have to be detached to be objective but B says you dont necessarily have to be detached. Would this not be a point of disagreement for both passage?
A never mentions detachment. A might imply detachment from your political affiliations, or pre-existing biases, but not from the subject matter as in B.
Author B still implies detachment is necessary by stating that it is "indispensable." They're just saying detachment shouldn't be valued as an "end" in of itself but rather valued as a means to an "end," the end being "achieving deeper understanding."
This phrasing of value takes the same sort of value framework that Immanuel Kant placed on how we should treat humans, but the more important form of valuing a human was an end in of themselves. Look up the different formulations of Kant's "categorical imperative." That concept might clear up this sort of concept that Author B brought up. In particular, it's similar to Kant's second of three formulations of his categorical imperative.
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.
9 comments
trading time for confidence
For the split-approach questions: If it's a comparative passage and the question COMPARES passage a and b, should you automatically assume you should come back to the question after reading both?
@ReaganPressley It sounded to me like you could do either, but I feel like I'll probably just wait until the passage. Based on my understanding, you could take a pass at the answers and if there's anything that Passage A didn't state, or have an opinion on, you could get rid of it. But you might only be able to get rid of one answer on a pass but you'd also be able to get an understanding of how the author of Passage A feels before diving into Passage B so that also gives you a bit of a headstart on those answers. But I think it's just up to your preference.
JY says passage A (ie. its author) agrees with (E), but we're technically not looking for the point of disagreement between the author of A and the author of B. We're looking for the point of disagreement between "the kind of objective historian described in passage A" and the author of passage B. We don't know the opinion of objective historians on the statement mentioned in answer choice E. #feedback
Got it right! sooo happy :)
#Help is someone able to better explain why A isn't the answer? From my understanding, A is saying that you have to be detached to be objective but B says you dont necessarily have to be detached. Would this not be a point of disagreement for both passage?
A never mentions detachment. A might imply detachment from your political affiliations, or pre-existing biases, but not from the subject matter as in B.
Author B still implies detachment is necessary by stating that it is "indispensable." They're just saying detachment shouldn't be valued as an "end" in of itself but rather valued as a means to an "end," the end being "achieving deeper understanding."
This phrasing of value takes the same sort of value framework that Immanuel Kant placed on how we should treat humans, but the more important form of valuing a human was an end in of themselves. Look up the different formulations of Kant's "categorical imperative." That concept might clear up this sort of concept that Author B brought up. In particular, it's similar to Kant's second of three formulations of his categorical imperative.
I appreciate the conversation in this section around trading time for confidence!! Helpful way of framing the approach.