I feel like it's still hard to wrap around the idea of breaking this down and not getting confused with the wording. Any tips for trying to simplify this more?
For this sentence, I addresses the "proportion" in the quality/comparison step, thus comparing diets of those who read versus not and identifying the quality of comparison as "Which proportion is significantly lower?" Is that an acceptable thing to do?
@AndrewHowell It's acceptable, because even without you mentioning "proportion" in Step 2, it is implied that "proportion" is what we are talking about when we say "which one is significantly lower?"
The most recent scientific research shows that the proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels.
A v. B
Diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products vs Diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels on food products.
Read the nutrition labels vs. Don't read
What is the relationship comparing A vs B?
Which proportion of fat calories is significantly lower (when reading vs. not reading nutrition labels)?
Could #2 (Identify what we're comparing them on) be something like "Which group of people have a significantly lower proportion of fat calories?" I know our answers do not have to be explicitly the same.....
people who read label vs people who don't read label
That seems like a more accurate/intuitive way to read the sentence. We are comparing these two groups of people on the basis of their proportion of fat calories.
This is exactly how I went about dissecting it on my own when I paused the video before his explanation, and I thought his explanation was overcomplicated after watching through it. I had the A vs B as "people who read nutrition labels" and "people who do not", comparing the "lowest proportion of fat calories in diets", and the winner being people who read labels. I'm glad that others had this train of thought too!
I agree it was so confusing at first, but after hearing the explanation, I realized I only understood the stimulus on a surface level. I'm guessing that understanding everything and seeing all the small puzzles should help us see through the bs answer choices
A little different take on breaking down complex comparative statements or any complex statement on the LSAT.
Use a conditional logic road map. Considering that all the LSAT is testing is our ability to break down, analyze, and criticize relationships, we can translate the relationships in the most simple way possible, "if/then" statements.
For example:
The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read the nutrition label.
Translate to conditional logic:
Diets of people who read the nutrition labels (NL)
Diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels (/NL)
NL ---> significantly lower fat proportion than (/NL)
Otherwise stated as: If it is a person who reads the nutrition label then their fat proportion is significantly lower than the people who don't read the nutrition labels.
Look, I know, it is not perfect. It might seem a little too choppy to put these type of complex statements in a conditional statement. But, doing so, forces you to focus on the core RELATIONSHIPS. Especially, if you are adept at dealing with conditional statements, you will be forced to parse out the sentence to get to the core of any statement.
Be careful though, always translate back and understand what you are dealing with after you take a abstract sentence into a conational statement. Even though we can almost always use conditionality to take control of complex statement, if it is not a clear conditional relationship then be sure that you do not overreach the relationship has a clear cut conditional statement. Conditionality is a specific type of relationship.
Love this lesson-- it clarifies and applies so many important concepts at once.
Can these type of core lessons be accompanied with videos of J.Y. teaching/clarifying these concepts? I find it easier to understand and relate to the lesson when I also see and hear someone giving explanations/examples/etc.
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.
22 comments
Easier just to think and understand this. Really not difficult.
I feel like it's still hard to wrap around the idea of breaking this down and not getting confused with the wording. Any tips for trying to simplify this more?
For this sentence, I addresses the "proportion" in the quality/comparison step, thus comparing diets of those who read versus not and identifying the quality of comparison as "Which proportion is significantly lower?" Is that an acceptable thing to do?
@AndrewHowell It's acceptable, because even without you mentioning "proportion" in Step 2, it is implied that "proportion" is what we are talking about when we say "which one is significantly lower?"
I broke it down like this:
The most recent scientific research shows that
the proportion of fat calories is significantly lower in the diets of
people who read the nutrition labels on food products
than it is in
people who do not read the nutrition labels.
The most recent scientific research shows that the proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read nutrition labels.
A v. B
Diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products vs Diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels on food products.
Read the nutrition labels vs. Don't read
What is the relationship comparing A vs B?
Which proportion of fat calories is significantly lower (when reading vs. not reading nutrition labels)?
Winner?
People who read the nutrition labels.
Could #2 (Identify what we're comparing them on) be something like "Which group of people have a significantly lower proportion of fat calories?" I know our answers do not have to be explicitly the same.....
This is understandable but definitely going to need to build repetition with breaking these down.
This really helped solidify everything!!
My brainnnnn!
Lets gooooooo! Keep it up everyone!!
nice
in this example, I thought we were comparing:
people who read label vs people who don't read label
That seems like a more accurate/intuitive way to read the sentence. We are comparing these two groups of people on the basis of their proportion of fat calories.
You are correct. That is exactly what is being compared.
A vs B should be "People who read the label" vs "People who don't read it"
The quality being compared between those two people is the percentage of their calories coming from fat.
The winner is the people who read the label.
He definitely made this one a lot more complicated than it needed to be, IMO.
This is exactly how I went about dissecting it on my own when I paused the video before his explanation, and I thought his explanation was overcomplicated after watching through it. I had the A vs B as "people who read nutrition labels" and "people who do not", comparing the "lowest proportion of fat calories in diets", and the winner being people who read labels. I'm glad that others had this train of thought too!
I think both ways work.
@ihavethehighground343 Okay so i am not a dumb dumb for thinking that way.
I agree it was so confusing at first, but after hearing the explanation, I realized I only understood the stimulus on a surface level. I'm guessing that understanding everything and seeing all the small puzzles should help us see through the bs answer choices
this diagram at the end helps so much!!
A little different take on breaking down complex comparative statements or any complex statement on the LSAT.
Use a conditional logic road map. Considering that all the LSAT is testing is our ability to break down, analyze, and criticize relationships, we can translate the relationships in the most simple way possible, "if/then" statements.
For example:
The proportion of fat calories in the diets of people who read the nutrition labels on food products is significantly lower than it is in the diets of people who do not read the nutrition label.
Translate to conditional logic:
Diets of people who read the nutrition labels (NL)
Diets of people who do not read the nutrition labels (/NL)
NL ---> significantly lower fat proportion than (/NL)
Otherwise stated as: If it is a person who reads the nutrition label then their fat proportion is significantly lower than the people who don't read the nutrition labels.
Look, I know, it is not perfect. It might seem a little too choppy to put these type of complex statements in a conditional statement. But, doing so, forces you to focus on the core RELATIONSHIPS. Especially, if you are adept at dealing with conditional statements, you will be forced to parse out the sentence to get to the core of any statement.
Be careful though, always translate back and understand what you are dealing with after you take a abstract sentence into a conational statement. Even though we can almost always use conditionality to take control of complex statement, if it is not a clear conditional relationship then be sure that you do not overreach the relationship has a clear cut conditional statement. Conditionality is a specific type of relationship.
this is dope. Thank you
Love this lesson-- it clarifies and applies so many important concepts at once.
Can these type of core lessons be accompanied with videos of J.Y. teaching/clarifying these concepts? I find it easier to understand and relate to the lesson when I also see and hear someone giving explanations/examples/etc.