Had a hard time with this once it provided the Absolute example.
Absolute means universally objective, true or a fact; Vs a relative claim which introduces conditions and things that can change based on the reader.
I think the attempt was to make absolute statements into comparatives. But there is nothing to compare. Ex:
Tom's recipe takes X steps and Y time. (This is absolute)(Premise)
Tom's recipe is easy (Argument)(Conclusion) for most people to follow.
The difficulty I was having is that if you take off the first sentence (the absolute claim) the rest is all subject or relative. Tom's recipe is easy to follow? Compared to what/who?
Maybe in the context of comparatives, absolute is the wrong term? Or maybe "easy" is the wrong word?
After writing this and looking at "Let's review", I see the lesson is "Don't confuse comparatives with absolute claims". the misunderstanding may come from forgetting that, and getting stuck on a subjective word like easy.
TLDR; IMO the easiest way to clarify is to change:
"Conversely, you don't want to confuse an absolute claim for a relative one.
Absolute Claim Example:"
TO
Conversely, you don't want to confuse an absolute claim for a relative one that is implying absolute qualities.
@NoraElkhyati When something is "absolute", you have a clear, straightforward answer/outcome, with no room for an alternative possibility. When something is "relative", it's more vague and has more than one possible answer. Think of "absolute" like math, where there is only one correct answer (1+1 will always equal 2), and "relative" as something broad, or allowing for more than one possibility, like ELA/writing, where many perspectives can be true as long as they are supported. I really hope this helps :)
Its relative because Tom is only taller than Athena he can still be considered short. Saying "Tom is tall" is saying he is tall and not short. I had to play this lesson twice to fully understand this one.
Relative claims compare without making absolute statements. Absolute claims make standalone statements without comparisons. The LSAT traps you by converting one into the other.
I'm confused for the objective example, how can we say that it is possible for them to be not objective at all when we are using language like "less" and "more?"
I understand this lesson but I dont understand how the last example is a comparative sentence at all. In previous lessons the teacher mentioned that, implied or not, there are two things being compared. If the last example says "Tom's recipe for lasagna is easy to follow", I understand how that is absolute but I do not understand how its comparative sentence. There isn't even an implied "than" in that sentence. So, I am having a hard time thinking of an absolute example for comparative sentences. Are not all comparative sentences relative? As it is being compared to another thing (hence the "than" or implied "than")?
In both cases, you can reasonably infer Tom is tall. However, with the absolute claim, you know that because it simply states what Tom is, in and of himself. For the relative, you only know how tall Tom is in relation to a tree. If I took out the object of relation, it would just be "Tom is taller", which would not mean anything without the object of comparison.
Hello, can someone please help me understand for the example of "Tom's recipe for lasagna..." why there is an option that it could be "...harder than most other recipes"?? I dont understand how that is stated/implied in the comparative. Thank you
It seems to me that relative claims could provide support for an absolute claim.
For example, if you said said, "tom is taller than athena, bob, and john" than to me it makes it more likely that tom is tall and therefore provides weak support for the claim that Tom is tall.
Taking this to the extreme, if you listed out, "tom is taller than x" replacing x with every person in the united states, than it would be very likely that Tom is tall and it would provide strong support for the absolute claim that Tom is tall.
I'm confused about what makes a claim absolute vs relative. What is the difference between the first example- "Tom is taller than Athena", and the last example "Tom's recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for some people.". What about that last example makes it absolute?
The example "Tom is taller than Athena" compares two subjects against each other, whereas an absolute claim is something that is assumed to be as true or is a "standalone."
@3:06 in the video, can someone explain how this statement could imply that Tom's recipe is harder to follow than most other recipes? Is it because the lack of context surrounding "most" recipes?
It states that toms recipe "Is easy for most people", but it says nothing about his recipe relative to other recipes. Therefore he could theoretically have like a mac and cheese recipe or something that is objectively pretty easy, but it's possible that this recipe would still be harder than every conceivable recipe that exists, like a sandwhich or something.
People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.
My brain went to the following splits:
People are equally as objective
OR
People are more objective about a subject which they do not possess extensive knowledge.
I feel like it is wrong but I don't understand why it would be or why it wasn't the first thing said
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.
90 comments
Is this still a comparative statement? and if yes, how?
Tom’s recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for most people.
@hataie it is a comparative imo. Because 'most people' imply that there's a subset of people that are NOT most.
Had a hard time with this once it provided the Absolute example.
Absolute means universally objective, true or a fact; Vs a relative claim which introduces conditions and things that can change based on the reader.
I think the attempt was to make absolute statements into comparatives. But there is nothing to compare. Ex:
Tom's recipe takes X steps and Y time. (This is absolute)(Premise)
Tom's recipe is easy (Argument)(Conclusion) for most people to follow.
The difficulty I was having is that if you take off the first sentence (the absolute claim) the rest is all subject or relative. Tom's recipe is easy to follow? Compared to what/who?
Maybe in the context of comparatives, absolute is the wrong term? Or maybe "easy" is the wrong word?
After writing this and looking at "Let's review", I see the lesson is "Don't confuse comparatives with absolute claims". the misunderstanding may come from forgetting that, and getting stuck on a subjective word like easy.
TLDR; IMO the easiest way to clarify is to change:
"Conversely, you don't want to confuse an absolute claim for a relative one.
Absolute Claim Example:"
TO
Conversely, you don't want to confuse an absolute claim for a relative one that is implying absolute qualities.
("Absolute Claim") Relative Claim implying absolute qualities Example:
Whew...
Does the phrase "tend to" make a claim relative rather than absolute?
This is such a bad explanation.
@JacksonStephens if you can explain better I am all ears honestly
Relative: Most people find that the Chloe Paddington is bulkier than some other luxury bags.
Absolute: Parmigiano Reggiano has a greater amount and higher-quality protein than any other cheese on the planet.
im so confused on the difference between relative and absolute. what are the basic definitions?
@NoraElkhyati When something is "absolute", you have a clear, straightforward answer/outcome, with no room for an alternative possibility. When something is "relative", it's more vague and has more than one possible answer. Think of "absolute" like math, where there is only one correct answer (1+1 will always equal 2), and "relative" as something broad, or allowing for more than one possibility, like ELA/writing, where many perspectives can be true as long as they are supported. I really hope this helps :)
@Cee🦋 I like this explanation!
@Cee🦋 Thank you! This made so much sense.
Yikes
This was not a good way to explain it but the show goes on
Tom is tall - Absolute
Tom is taller than Athena-Relative
Its relative because Tom is only taller than Athena he can still be considered short. Saying "Tom is tall" is saying he is tall and not short. I had to play this lesson twice to fully understand this one.
I asked CHATGPT to explain this:
"Tom’s recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for most people."
this sentence is about people, not about other recipes.
It means:
More than half of people find Tom’s recipe easy to follow.
Now look at the second sentence:
This is a comparison among recipes,
not people.The two classic LSAT mistakes
Mistake 1: Turning relative into absolute
“X is better than Y” → “X is good”
Mistake 2: Turning absolute into relative
“X is easy” → “X is easier than others”
Relative claims compare without making absolute statements. Absolute claims make standalone statements without comparisons. The LSAT traps you by converting one into the other.
I thought these lessons were going to help me understand the lsat ...but I feel way less prepared than when I was reading the lsat textbook lol fml
i'm tired
@JohnThorn lmboooooooooooo.same.
I'm confused for the objective example, how can we say that it is possible for them to be not objective at all when we are using language like "less" and "more?"
Tom's recipe is easy to follow for most people ; Tom's recipe is easy to follow for the majority of people (<50%) as opposed to the minority of people
A- Identify the entities being compared: majority of people vs non-majority of people.
B- Identify the thing being compared on: the easiness of Tom's recipe to follow for people
C- Identify the winner: Most people can follow Tom's recipe
I understand this lesson but I dont understand how the last example is a comparative sentence at all. In previous lessons the teacher mentioned that, implied or not, there are two things being compared. If the last example says "Tom's recipe for lasagna is easy to follow", I understand how that is absolute but I do not understand how its comparative sentence. There isn't even an implied "than" in that sentence. So, I am having a hard time thinking of an absolute example for comparative sentences. Are not all comparative sentences relative? As it is being compared to another thing (hence the "than" or implied "than")?
is there a formula for these? im lost
@KayleeMurray
Tom is tall - Absolute
Tom is taller than a tree - Relative
In both cases, you can reasonably infer Tom is tall. However, with the absolute claim, you know that because it simply states what Tom is, in and of himself. For the relative, you only know how tall Tom is in relation to a tree. If I took out the object of relation, it would just be "Tom is taller", which would not mean anything without the object of comparison.
Hello, can someone please help me understand for the example of "Tom's recipe for lasagna..." why there is an option that it could be "...harder than most other recipes"?? I dont understand how that is stated/implied in the comparative. Thank you
@MWise Because most other recipes could be easier to follow for most people, or easier to follow for everyone.
If something is X, only because of its relation to something else, then it's relative.
If something is X, regardless of anything else then it's absolute.
This explanation is kind of confusing, here is an easier way to look at it:
If something is X, only because of its relation to something else, then it's relative.
If something is X, regardless of anything else then it's absolute.
It seems to me that relative claims could provide support for an absolute claim.
For example, if you said said, "tom is taller than athena, bob, and john" than to me it makes it more likely that tom is tall and therefore provides weak support for the claim that Tom is tall.
Taking this to the extreme, if you listed out, "tom is taller than x" replacing x with every person in the united states, than it would be very likely that Tom is tall and it would provide strong support for the absolute claim that Tom is tall.
I'm confused about what makes a claim absolute vs relative. What is the difference between the first example- "Tom is taller than Athena", and the last example "Tom's recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for some people.". What about that last example makes it absolute?
The example "Tom is taller than Athena" compares two subjects against each other, whereas an absolute claim is something that is assumed to be as true or is a "standalone."
Thank you for breaking this down because I had the same question.
@3:06 in the video, can someone explain how this statement could imply that Tom's recipe is harder to follow than most other recipes? Is it because the lack of context surrounding "most" recipes?
It states that toms recipe "Is easy for most people", but it says nothing about his recipe relative to other recipes. Therefore he could theoretically have like a mac and cheese recipe or something that is objectively pretty easy, but it's possible that this recipe would still be harder than every conceivable recipe that exists, like a sandwhich or something.
from what i understand its because there is no argurment so we dont know if its true or not , it can go both ways
I need help understanding this:
People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do not possess extensive knowledge.
My brain went to the following splits:
People are equally as objective
OR
People are more objective about a subject which they do not possess extensive knowledge.
I feel like it is wrong but I don't understand why it would be or why it wasn't the first thing said
In the next lesson, it tells you that you can do this. They are both correct, you'd just be reframing it for your own better understanding.
I was thinking the same thing! If anyone could explain it better please :)