Relative claims compare without making absolute statements. Absolute claims make standalone statements without comparisons. The LSAT traps you by converting one into the other.
Relative vs. Absolute comparatives are essential to understand because these are sentences that it is so easy to make assumptions on. For example, from the sentence “Sharks are scarier than penguins”, we cannot infer that sharks meet a certain level of scariness, say for the example that there is a scale from 1-100 of scariness. Just because sharks are scarier than penguins, we don’t know that sharks are a 50 on the scale, or that penguins are a 5. That’s entirely possible, but we can’t be absolute in thinking that. All we know is that sharks are higher, so it could be possible that sharks are 100, and penguins are suddenly super scary and are a 99. Possible, because all we know is that sharks are higher.
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?"
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 don't understand how for "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" there is the possibility that people are objective about both. Isn't it explicitly saying that there tends to be less objectivity when you know more about a subject than when you don't know as much??
same. I feel something is wrong here. If A tends to be less objective than B, we compare objectivity. Perhaps " tends" is making the sentence weak and allows for equality of objectivity ? Anyway, I hope someone could answer. Or perhaps it's relative only?
This lesson aims to teach us not to infer absolute claims from relative statements,
We are given the relative statement of "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."
This statement solely focuses on the level of objectivity of people regarding two specific scenarios (studying a subject they know a lot about vs. studying a subject they do not know much about), but not all scenarios (scenarios outside of this sentence).
I think what JY is saying here is that just because someone is "less objective" or "more objective" than someone else, does not necessarily mean that they are not objective overall (in the grand scheme of things).
JY wants to make sure that we don't infer a GENERAL rule when viewing SOLELY this sentence (it happens more than we think, especially on the LSAT).
For example, instead of "objectivity" let's substitute that with "hungry."
"People tend to be less hungry regarding foods they dislike than with foods which they like." (I'm just using a similar formatted sentence to the one we were given).
JY is saying that even if we know that one person can be less hungry than another, there is still the possibility that both sides are still hungry in general.
Less objectivity does not mean the absence of objectivity. JY is warning us about making absolute claims that less objective = no objectiveness.
Given this statement in relative context, it is a common misconception to make an absolute statement like "those people are not objective." This is a pitfall that JY wants us to avoid.
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
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.
Wouldn't the other option for "Tom's Recipe for Lasagna is easy to follow for most people" be that other recipes are harder than Toms? Why does it say "Tom's recipe is harder than most other recipes" as a "could be" option, when before that, it says:
"It could be that most recipes are also easy to follow in which case there's nothing special about Tom's. Or it could be that most recipes are hard to follow in which case, yeah, Tom's would stand out."
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.
For this statement, how can it be that people are not objective about either kind of subject?
If there is less objectivity about a subject in which we have much knowledge about, doesn't that imply that there is some sort of objectivity about a subject in which we have little knowledge?
How can we have no objectivity for either subject when one is less than the other?
JY isn't meaning that they are not objective at all, or that they are entirely subjective, rather that all we know is that people are more subjective about topics of which they possess extensive knowledge than topics of which they do not.
The point is that we are comparing the two relata on their comparative subjectivity, not the standard of their overall subjectivity.
@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 :)
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
#feedback For those who are confused, this video does not do a good job of explaining the basics of relative vs. absolute. I was so confused, so I did some Google searches and asked ChatGBT, and it gave me better background information/breakdown. I then came back to this video, and it made more sense.
@m_k_a_a_a I agree. I needed an outside explanation before further understanding what the video meant. I believe the video is trying to explain that comparatives can appear to be an absolute claim when it is not. An absolute claim describes something independently without comparison (ex: Tom is tall.) which is the exact opposite purpose of a comparative (ex: Tom is taller than Athena). A comparative may appear as absolute without context.
It is important to identify comparatives vs. absolute claims when answering flaw question-types. The arguer may state an absolute claim that follows with a relative conclusion or vice versa. The logic here does not follow as an absolute claim does not imply a relative conclusion.
The point is, with flaw questions,it is up to the student to be able to identify the flaw.
It's possible i'm confused, but "absolute comparisons" don't seem to be comparisons at all. The example used about Tom's lasagna recipe doesn't compare his recipe to anything. It seems like all comparisons are relative, by their nature of examining one thing in the context of another.
This is so prime for breaking down answer choices. The LSAT loves to confuse absolute comparisons with relative comparisons and vise-versa as trap answer choices. More often than not, when you see a comparative statement in a logical reasoning and reading comp answer choice, it will be wrong, rather than right. However, we could very well see a right answer choice as a comparative statement, the important thing is to just know how to handle comparative statements, inside and out.
The LSAT loves to make comparative statements in describing phenomena in science passages. Such as, we experience more pollution when X happens, or it less likely for animal X to fight with each other than animal Y, or bacteria is more likely to thrive when X happens, and so on.
Be on the look out for comparative statement when a science passage is describing a fact about the world!
103 comments
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.
@rylie5lynn hell yeah
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'm tired
@JohnThorn lmboooooooooooo.same.
Relative vs. Absolute comparatives are essential to understand because these are sentences that it is so easy to make assumptions on. For example, from the sentence “Sharks are scarier than penguins”, we cannot infer that sharks meet a certain level of scariness, say for the example that there is a scale from 1-100 of scariness. Just because sharks are scarier than penguins, we don’t know that sharks are a 50 on the scale, or that penguins are a 5. That’s entirely possible, but we can’t be absolute in thinking that. All we know is that sharks are higher, so it could be possible that sharks are 100, and penguins are suddenly super scary and are a 99. Possible, because all we know is that sharks are higher.
I was struggling to understand the application of this lesson until I read this comment...thank you!:)
simplest way to understand imo:
Relative = compared to something else
Absolute = true on its own without comparison
@SwagOD Thank you! Thats a great way to put it, I got kinda confused on this section.
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?"
This is such a bad explanation.
@JacksonStephens if you can explain better I am all ears honestly
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.
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.
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
@GraceArciniega Which textbook were you using? And whcih did you find to end up being more beneficial? This or textbook? Thanks
I don't understand how for "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" there is the possibility that people are objective about both. Isn't it explicitly saying that there tends to be less objectivity when you know more about a subject than when you don't know as much??
same. I feel something is wrong here. If A tends to be less objective than B, we compare objectivity. Perhaps " tends" is making the sentence weak and allows for equality of objectivity ? Anyway, I hope someone could answer. Or perhaps it's relative only?
This lesson aims to teach us not to infer absolute claims from relative statements,
We are given the relative statement of "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."
This statement solely focuses on the level of objectivity of people regarding two specific scenarios (studying a subject they know a lot about vs. studying a subject they do not know much about), but not all scenarios (scenarios outside of this sentence).
I think what JY is saying here is that just because someone is "less objective" or "more objective" than someone else, does not necessarily mean that they are not objective overall (in the grand scheme of things).
JY wants to make sure that we don't infer a GENERAL rule when viewing SOLELY this sentence (it happens more than we think, especially on the LSAT).
For example, instead of "objectivity" let's substitute that with "hungry."
"People tend to be less hungry regarding foods they dislike than with foods which they like." (I'm just using a similar formatted sentence to the one we were given).
JY is saying that even if we know that one person can be less hungry than another, there is still the possibility that both sides are still hungry in general.
Less objectivity does not mean the absence of objectivity. JY is warning us about making absolute claims that less objective = no objectiveness.
Given this statement in relative context, it is a common misconception to make an absolute statement like "those people are not objective." This is a pitfall that JY wants us to avoid.
Thank you for this - I was just as confused! But making it less abstract with your example puts things into perspective.
Exactly
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.
This was not a good way to explain it but the show goes on
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:
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
#help
Wouldn't the other option for "Tom's Recipe for Lasagna is easy to follow for most people" be that other recipes are harder than Toms? Why does it say "Tom's recipe is harder than most other recipes" as a "could be" option, when before that, it says:
"It could be that most recipes are also easy to follow in which case there's nothing special about Tom's. Or it could be that most recipes are hard to follow in which case, yeah, Tom's would stand out."
I was thinking this too
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.
For this statement, how can it be that people are not objective about either kind of subject?
If there is less objectivity about a subject in which we have much knowledge about, doesn't that imply that there is some sort of objectivity about a subject in which we have little knowledge?
How can we have no objectivity for either subject when one is less than the other?
#help
The phrase "not objective" here means subjective.
JY isn't meaning that they are not objective at all, or that they are entirely subjective, rather that all we know is that people are more subjective about topics of which they possess extensive knowledge than topics of which they do not.
The point is that we are comparing the two relata on their comparative subjectivity, not the standard of their overall subjectivity.
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.
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 :)
#feedback For those who are confused, this video does not do a good job of explaining the basics of relative vs. absolute. I was so confused, so I did some Google searches and asked ChatGBT, and it gave me better background information/breakdown. I then came back to this video, and it made more sense.
@m_k_a_a_a I agree. I needed an outside explanation before further understanding what the video meant. I believe the video is trying to explain that comparatives can appear to be an absolute claim when it is not. An absolute claim describes something independently without comparison (ex: Tom is tall.) which is the exact opposite purpose of a comparative (ex: Tom is taller than Athena). A comparative may appear as absolute without context.
It is important to identify comparatives vs. absolute claims when answering flaw question-types. The arguer may state an absolute claim that follows with a relative conclusion or vice versa. The logic here does not follow as an absolute claim does not imply a relative conclusion.
The point is, with flaw questions,it is up to the student to be able to identify the flaw.
It's possible i'm confused, but "absolute comparisons" don't seem to be comparisons at all. The example used about Tom's lasagna recipe doesn't compare his recipe to anything. It seems like all comparisons are relative, by their nature of examining one thing in the context of another.
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.We're taking the hobbits to Isengard!!!
This is so prime for breaking down answer choices. The LSAT loves to confuse absolute comparisons with relative comparisons and vise-versa as trap answer choices. More often than not, when you see a comparative statement in a logical reasoning and reading comp answer choice, it will be wrong, rather than right. However, we could very well see a right answer choice as a comparative statement, the important thing is to just know how to handle comparative statements, inside and out.
The LSAT loves to make comparative statements in describing phenomena in science passages. Such as, we experience more pollution when X happens, or it less likely for animal X to fight with each other than animal Y, or bacteria is more likely to thrive when X happens, and so on.
Be on the look out for comparative statement when a science passage is describing a fact about the world!
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.