I tried the sequential approach first, then came to the split approach. What's interesting is that I found this question a bit difficult using the sequential approach. But after watching this video I now see how I could've eliminated more choices using the split approach and eventually narrowed it down to the correct answer.
How are we supposed to cross certain answers off on the actual test? I am worried about having to go back and forth between the questions if I do the split method, and am not sure how I could remember which ones I've eliminated if I can't mark it. So far I haven't seen a feature on drills/prep tests that allow me to cross answers off, but I may be missing something? #help
Initially, I left off where J. Y. did (i.e., leaving B, D, and E alive) but I took a minute to consider the wording of D and E (i.e., "MORE" skeptical) which essentially implied that Author A was skeptical and critical, which is inaccurate, so I got B :D
It's so satisfying to cross off the two and leave the other three remaining before watching the video and then watching the same result unfold. It's even more satisfying to see the same exact reasoning revealed. I love this method.
#feedback I don't understand why A is wrong. Isn't a logical implication of evolutionary psychology altruism? (what the whole passage is trying to explain) Could someone tell me what I'm missing?
Altruism is an issue the author tries to answer in terms of evolutionary psychology. He isn't trying to tell us that evolutionary psychology logically infers altruism, but that the concept of altruism is a thing that exists, and it may be explained by the hypotheses he provides (hypotheses which are based in evolutionary psychology).
E says that the author of passage B is more critical of the "motives" than the author of passage A. Passage A does not mention the motives, meaning it is not critical. If B is even a little bit critical, then E is true. We haven't read passage B yet, so choice E is still consistent with the information in passage A.
#feedback for this question: how do we categorize it? Would it be more of an author's attitude question, based on assessing the approaches of evolutionary psychology by the two authors? Just want to make sure I identified the question properly.
Got it, that makes sense. For a second too I almost categorized this as a Method of Reasoning in LR before thinking more about it. Thank you for your help! :)
The way the answers are presented turns this into a question more like Author's Attitude. However, the answers didn't have to do that. Sometimes when we're asked about an "approach," it's more like a method of reasoning question in LR. So the answer can say something like, "The author presents examples to support her position."
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
"Get out of here!" lol
I tried the sequential approach first, then came to the split approach. What's interesting is that I found this question a bit difficult using the sequential approach. But after watching this video I now see how I could've eliminated more choices using the split approach and eventually narrowed it down to the correct answer.
How are we supposed to cross certain answers off on the actual test? I am worried about having to go back and forth between the questions if I do the split method, and am not sure how I could remember which ones I've eliminated if I can't mark it. So far I haven't seen a feature on drills/prep tests that allow me to cross answers off, but I may be missing something? #help
To the right side of each answer choice is a little gray X, if you click that, the AC becomes "crossed out" (a much lighter color)!
Excellent instructor.
I didn't cross (A) but I did cross (C).
Initially, I left off where J. Y. did (i.e., leaving B, D, and E alive) but I took a minute to consider the wording of D and E (i.e., "MORE" skeptical) which essentially implied that Author A was skeptical and critical, which is inaccurate, so I got B :D
It's so satisfying to cross off the two and leave the other three remaining before watching the video and then watching the same result unfold. It's even more satisfying to see the same exact reasoning revealed. I love this method.
Ditto!
#feedback Some of these videos continue to not have the option to turn CCs off. It's covering some of the text and makes it hard to read.
refresh the page a couple times before you start the video for a quick fix. definitely frustrating though.
this is a wild question
#feedback I don't understand why A is wrong. Isn't a logical implication of evolutionary psychology altruism? (what the whole passage is trying to explain) Could someone tell me what I'm missing?
I picked B - but was stuck on A for a bit thinking the same thing. Would love an answer to this!
Altruism is an issue the author tries to answer in terms of evolutionary psychology. He isn't trying to tell us that evolutionary psychology logically infers altruism, but that the concept of altruism is a thing that exists, and it may be explained by the hypotheses he provides (hypotheses which are based in evolutionary psychology).
lmk if this helps I just dumped my thoughts down.
#feedback Why don't we eliminate AC E since the "motives" of evolutionary psychologists are not mentioned in passage A at all?
#help
E says that the author of passage B is more critical of the "motives" than the author of passage A. Passage A does not mention the motives, meaning it is not critical. If B is even a little bit critical, then E is true. We haven't read passage B yet, so choice E is still consistent with the information in passage A.
Oh, this is how comparative claim works! Thank you!
#feedback for this question: how do we categorize it? Would it be more of an author's attitude question, based on assessing the approaches of evolutionary psychology by the two authors? Just want to make sure I identified the question properly.
Got it, that makes sense. For a second too I almost categorized this as a Method of Reasoning in LR before thinking more about it. Thank you for your help! :)
The way the answers are presented turns this into a question more like Author's Attitude. However, the answers didn't have to do that. Sometimes when we're asked about an "approach," it's more like a method of reasoning question in LR. So the answer can say something like, "The author presents examples to support her position."