Q4 confuses me. Is it not a negative comparative? I wrote that either humans act equally selfishly or unselfishly, or they act more unselfishly….somebody please explain why I’m wrong cause I was very confident. He said that if we see “no” or “not” in the stimulus it’s a negative comparison
I don't understand Q4. How can the winner be "humans acting selfishly"? Isn't it a tie? The question states that there is "no statistical evidence", meaning both should be held equal, neither being more likely than the other.
@Littlebowpink I got this one right but used the wrong terminology. Instead of glacial periods I wrote “non-interglacial periods” because I didnt know the right fit for the opposite haha
I'm having trouble understanding the "winner". For the first question, why is this year considered the winner? Same with question three, and the pop. of ducks at the western lake?
the answer to question 4 makes no sense to me. is it because it is an absolute claim? like are we just supposed to take the "no statistical evidence" as 100% true? i don't understand how acting selfishly is the winner.
@YehudaNissani The way I like to imagine it is by looking at each sentence within its own "world." Take Question 2 for example, which I initially struggled with. The "world" within this question is focused on which period faces a slower change of seawater change. Because the sentence argues that seawater changes more slowly during glacial periods, and slower change is the emphasis of this "world," glacial periods would be the winner. It is the difference between assuming that "slow" = a bad concept and cannot be the winner, and focusing on what the sentence is actually getting at.
@AreeshaSaif There is no negative modifier. Had the sentence stated "humans don't act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly" then we have the possibility of humans acting equally selfish and unselfish.
NOW, let's instead focus on the rest of the sentence (and ignore the phenomenon we just looked at above):
No statistical evidence is provided to show that [phenomenon].
This bolded part of the sentence is saying that the phenomenon (the part that is stricken through) does not have any evidence provided. It doesn't mean the phenomenon is true or false. It is just saying we don't currently have the support to prove the phenomenon.
Question 4 is puzzling me. I thought it would be a trick question. Having "no statistical evidence" does not mean that the statement that follows is true. So we have no way to know if humans acting selfishly is actually a winner in terms of comparing more often. There could be no evidence in the other direction as well! Kinda of like the rules we were following in negative comparative claims. Seems like the answer is just accepting this major flaw that a lack of evidence = something not being true ... (and yes I understand that this exercise is purely about the steps of comparatives but I think this is a poor example choice).
3/5. Aww. I thought 2. was a trick question and that we needed more information. I didn't realize that "glacial" was implied. Scientific terms aren't my strongest suit, either lol. What helped me put implied terms into perspective better was the translation I came up with:
"Water heats up more slowly than it does in summer seasons."
Wth this example, it's easy to see that the two things being compared are summer seasons and non-summer seasons, without "non-summer seasons" being explicitly stated. It's also easy for me to see the referents and swap them for their referents.
For Question 4, I thought Step 3 would be " humans act more unselfishly." OR "humans act unselfishly just as much as they act selfishly". After watching the video, I now understand that we weren't supposed to focus on the subject and predicate verb, but I thought it was okay, given the lesson on absolutes and relatives, where the context provided helped us arrive at our implications.
@Cee🦋 I tripped up on this one too - scientific questions are my weakness as well, I identified them as "non interglacial periods"...which I guess would correctly be glacial
Again, Question 4's alleged "winner" according to 7Sage is an error on their part:
As stated in the answers of all four of the other questions on the quiz, the "winner" is defined as (1.) which one of the two things has the (2.) quality or characteristic being compared—it's the outcome of unifying Instruction 1. And Instruction 2. of the Quiz Instructions. Question 4 explicitly states that the (2.) quality or characteristic of "more often" is not possessed by its erroneously alleged "winner" when it states, "No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often ..." Therefore, 7Sage's "Answer" that claims "humans act selfishly [more often]" is simply wrong in that Question 4 explicitly states that the (1.) "thing" (humans act selfishly) doesn't possess the quality or characteristic of "more often."
The fact that 7Sage gives an incoherent explanation that contradicts the other four questions' "winner" answer explanations on the quiz doesn't make their provided answer to Question 4 any more correct or defensible.
The way i read the examples is we're simply trying to break down the sentences to identify "what" is being compared, and by what metric/abstract idea. The "winner" doesn't have to be correct, simply comparison is being elevated by the comparison.
@DouglasNeumeyer it understand that it is inferred, but doesn't inferring that mean you have to know something about glacial periods? I'm sorry, but i do not know a damn thing about glacial periods. . . . if this is common knowledge to be inferred, I'm cooked.
@lwealcatch I thought that too, but the video and comments cleared it up. When looking strictly at the comparative statement, "Humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly." The selfish act is more often and is the winner. But once you take in the context of the first part and don't look at it strictly from the point of view of comparison, then that leads to the answer of no evidence and being unable to say a winner.
The Answer for Question 4 regarding the "winner" is objectively incorrect:
If the quality being compared occurs more often, then the "winner" would either be neither quality, or possibly the quality of humans acting unselfishly. The example explicitly states there is "No statistical evidence," for humans acting selfishly to be the "winner," therefore it is fundamentally not reasonable or cogent to declare it as such.
@tylermwhite everything preceding “that” is a clause that isn’t part of the comparative. The comparative itself says “humans acting selfishly is more likely than humans acting unselfishly”, and the previous clause’s role is to say “the following comparative is not supported by evidence.”
@TobiStein Your response is non sequitur and unhelpful; it appears to be an overly verbose rephrasing of the similarly irrational answer provided by 7Sage for Question 4.
As stated in the answers of all four of the other questions on the quiz, the "winner" is defined as (1.) which one of the two things has the (2.) quality or characteristic being compared—it's the outcome of unifying Instruction 1. And Instruction 2. of the Quiz Instructions. Question 4 explicitly states that the (2.) quality or characteristic of "more often" is not possessed by its erroneously alleged "winner" when it states, "No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often ..." Therefore, 7Sage's "Answer" that claims "humans act selfishly [more often]" is simply wrong in that Question 4 explicitly states that (1.) "thing" (humans act selfishly) doesn't possess the quality or characteristic of "more often."
The fact that 7Sage gives an incoherent explanation that contradicts the other four questions' "winner" answer explanations on the quiz doesn't make their provided answer on Question 4 any more correct or defensible.
@tylermwhite I think you’re getting tripped up on the idea of a winner. It’s a model, not the actual way that humans speak and communicate. Like I tell my high school students: the map is not the territory; the model is not reality.
The point of this whole exercise isn’t to follow a rigid set of steps whenever you encounter a comparative. It’s to use this model as a tool to aid in your understanding.
An analogous sentence:
“Nobody would honestly say that Tim keeps his room clean more often than not.”
Take out the context, and it’s “Tim keeps his room clean more often than not.” The comparative has not changed, but the context gives it a totally different meaning. If that shift in meaning is stunlocking you when you use this model, maybe try using a different method for analyzing comparatives?
@TobiStein Mr. Stein, amazing appeal to authority (teacher) followed by a complete sidestepping of my well-ordered argument only to engage in a straw man. You're evidently the one "stunlocked."
I am left wondering if your overt and unhelpful defense of 7Sage has something to do with the company being owned by The Sage Group PLC (SGE.L) listed on the London stock exchange; whose primary shareholders are institutions, the largest of which being BlackRock, Inc. I'm at a loss for another explanation as to why a presumably busy man with a teaching career would either spend time on this message board or take the effort to make such water-muddying comments. Bye and good riddance.
Soooo I'm very confused on question 4 - since there is no statistical evidence to show that the comparative statement is even true, how can we say that humans do act more selfishly? How can we actually declare that the "winner" since the beginning part of the statement essentially says we don't know if this is true?
238 comments
Q4 confuses me. Is it not a negative comparative? I wrote that either humans act equally selfishly or unselfishly, or they act more unselfishly….somebody please explain why I’m wrong cause I was very confident. He said that if we see “no” or “not” in the stimulus it’s a negative comparison
I don't understand Q4. How can the winner be "humans acting selfishly"? Isn't it a tie? The question states that there is "no statistical evidence", meaning both should be held equal, neither being more likely than the other.
@JordanCheng180 i think if you consider the first part of the sentence it could be possible they act more unselfishly or both are held equal.
I think the point of this was to understand what the main comparative claim is trying to say, ignoring the claim denial
@OliverJakacki This made it more clear, thank you :)
4/5, not sure how I would've been able to get Q2 since I don't know anything about glacial periods. Did anyone else have this issue as well?
@joycetheok sure did!
@Littlebowpink I got this one right but used the wrong terminology. Instead of glacial periods I wrote “non-interglacial periods” because I didnt know the right fit for the opposite haha
Man this was a great, solid lesson but a hella slog LOL. It's 3:35 where I am I am going to SLEEP good luck everyone!
Every time I continue studying I feel more stupid than before
I'm having trouble understanding the "winner". For the first question, why is this year considered the winner? Same with question three, and the pop. of ducks at the western lake?
@tst19 this year vs last year
which year had a "smaller surplus"?
"This year" which is the "winner"
@tst19
things being compared
Pop. of game ducks at east lake vs Pop. of game ducks at west lake.
quality being compared = Which one has a lower percentage of adult males?
Western lake has the lower percentage of adult males= Winner
not because having less adult males is automatically good its just in this "world" the western lake has a smaller pop.
When they say which one is the winner that means what "quality" matches up with the characteristics being compared. Hope this helps
@JarheadUSMC32 It did thank you so much
4/5
4 was confusing but besides that I think these comparatives are fine
aye i got 1 and 5 right, i think ill be okay once i watch a few more videos omfg
5/5
the answer to question 4 makes no sense to me. is it because it is an absolute claim? like are we just supposed to take the "no statistical evidence" as 100% true? i don't understand how acting selfishly is the winner.
@sarbear23 he explained in the video it may or may not be true
is figuring out the winner a basic logic thing or there is a strategy
@YehudaNissani The way I like to imagine it is by looking at each sentence within its own "world." Take Question 2 for example, which I initially struggled with. The "world" within this question is focused on which period faces a slower change of seawater change. Because the sentence argues that seawater changes more slowly during glacial periods, and slower change is the emphasis of this "world," glacial periods would be the winner. It is the difference between assuming that "slow" = a bad concept and cannot be the winner, and focusing on what the sentence is actually getting at.
Why is number 4 not a negative comparison and why is there not a tie?
@AreeshaSaif There is no negative modifier. Had the sentence stated "humans don't act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly" then we have the possibility of humans acting equally selfish and unselfish.
I'm so lost on 4
@BenjaminMcDaniel Question 4:
"No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly."
Let's ignore the first bit because the comparison starts after the word "that". Let's call this bolded part of the sentence the "phenomenon":
No statistical evidence is provided to show thathumans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly.Let's say selfishly = A, and then unselfishly = B. That gets us to the following:
Humans act A --more often-- than they act B.
Our re-write of the phenomenon becomes:
Humans act B --less often-- than they act A.
___________________________________________________
So, these two phenomena mean the exact same thing:
Humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly.
Humans act unselfishly less often than they act selfishly.
___________________________________________________
NOW, let's instead focus on the rest of the sentence (and ignore the phenomenon we just looked at above):
No statistical evidence is provided to show that [
phenomenon].This bolded part of the sentence is saying that the phenomenon (the part that is stricken through) does not have any evidence provided. It doesn't mean the phenomenon is true or false. It is just saying we don't currently have the support to prove the phenomenon.
@ZealousAltruisticMode Great explanation!!
Question 4 is puzzling me. I thought it would be a trick question. Having "no statistical evidence" does not mean that the statement that follows is true. So we have no way to know if humans acting selfishly is actually a winner in terms of comparing more often. There could be no evidence in the other direction as well! Kinda of like the rules we were following in negative comparative claims. Seems like the answer is just accepting this major flaw that a lack of evidence = something not being true ... (and yes I understand that this exercise is purely about the steps of comparatives but I think this is a poor example choice).
4/5. I thought they were comparing giant raccoons and padnas on their similarity to bears.
3/5. Aww. I thought 2. was a trick question and that we needed more information. I didn't realize that "glacial" was implied. Scientific terms aren't my strongest suit, either lol. What helped me put implied terms into perspective better was the translation I came up with:
"Water heats up more slowly than it does in summer seasons."
Wth this example, it's easy to see that the two things being compared are summer seasons and non-summer seasons, without "non-summer seasons" being explicitly stated. It's also easy for me to see the referents and swap them for their referents.
For Question 4, I thought Step 3 would be " humans act more unselfishly." OR "humans act unselfishly just as much as they act selfishly". After watching the video, I now understand that we weren't supposed to focus on the subject and predicate verb, but I thought it was okay, given the lesson on absolutes and relatives, where the context provided helped us arrive at our implications.
@Cee🦋 I tripped up on this one too - scientific questions are my weakness as well, I identified them as "non interglacial periods"...which I guess would correctly be glacial
Again, Question 4's alleged "winner" according to 7Sage is an error on their part:
As stated in the answers of all four of the other questions on the quiz, the "winner" is defined as (1.) which one of the two things has the (2.) quality or characteristic being compared—it's the outcome of unifying Instruction 1. And Instruction 2. of the Quiz Instructions. Question 4 explicitly states that the (2.) quality or characteristic of "more often" is not possessed by its erroneously alleged "winner" when it states, "No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often ..." Therefore, 7Sage's "Answer" that claims "humans act selfishly [more often]" is simply wrong in that Question 4 explicitly states that the (1.) "thing" (humans act selfishly) doesn't possess the quality or characteristic of "more often."
The fact that 7Sage gives an incoherent explanation that contradicts the other four questions' "winner" answer explanations on the quiz doesn't make their provided answer to Question 4 any more correct or defensible.
@tylermwhite
The way i read the examples is we're simply trying to break down the sentences to identify "what" is being compared, and by what metric/abstract idea. The "winner" doesn't have to be correct, simply comparison is being elevated by the comparison.
A v. B: Selfish v. Unselfish
Comparison: Which happens more often
Winner: Selfishly
I said non interglacial periods vs interglacial periods because I feel like that is a safer assumption than glacial periods. Idk
@besrawi same
@besrawi Yes, that helps a lot. Interglacial sounds like a specific scientific terminology to me and it is hard to imply " glacial".
But, when answering questions, I think it is stated in a way that we can imply it.
When doing drills, I was too hesitant to imply things, but this example is helpful.
Q2 confused me because how am I supposed to know about comparing interglacial periods to glacial periods if glacial is not at least mentioned?
@AmiraVanLeeuwen its inferred
@AmiraVanLeeuwen “inter-“ means “between”, so interglacial periods are periods between glacial periods.
@DouglasNeumeyer it understand that it is inferred, but doesn't inferring that mean you have to know something about glacial periods? I'm sorry, but i do not know a damn thing about glacial periods. . . . if this is common knowledge to be inferred, I'm cooked.
I found this to be a bit challenging there was a couple of questions that the answers did not make sense.
4 must be the least straightforward question ever. Answer has to be either/or if there's no evidence being shown indicating anything
@lwealcatch I thought that too, but the video and comments cleared it up. When looking strictly at the comparative statement, "Humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly." The selfish act is more often and is the winner. But once you take in the context of the first part and don't look at it strictly from the point of view of comparison, then that leads to the answer of no evidence and being unable to say a winner.
@SeanWatson I was tripped up exactly in this way.
The Answer for Question 4 regarding the "winner" is objectively incorrect:
If the quality being compared occurs more often, then the "winner" would either be neither quality, or possibly the quality of humans acting unselfishly. The example explicitly states there is "No statistical evidence," for humans acting selfishly to be the "winner," therefore it is fundamentally not reasonable or cogent to declare it as such.
@tylermwhite everything preceding “that” is a clause that isn’t part of the comparative. The comparative itself says “humans acting selfishly is more likely than humans acting unselfishly”, and the previous clause’s role is to say “the following comparative is not supported by evidence.”
(Sorry if it’s paraphrased; I’m on mobile)
@TobiStein Your response is non sequitur and unhelpful; it appears to be an overly verbose rephrasing of the similarly irrational answer provided by 7Sage for Question 4.
As stated in the answers of all four of the other questions on the quiz, the "winner" is defined as (1.) which one of the two things has the (2.) quality or characteristic being compared—it's the outcome of unifying Instruction 1. And Instruction 2. of the Quiz Instructions. Question 4 explicitly states that the (2.) quality or characteristic of "more often" is not possessed by its erroneously alleged "winner" when it states, "No statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often ..." Therefore, 7Sage's "Answer" that claims "humans act selfishly [more often]" is simply wrong in that Question 4 explicitly states that (1.) "thing" (humans act selfishly) doesn't possess the quality or characteristic of "more often."
The fact that 7Sage gives an incoherent explanation that contradicts the other four questions' "winner" answer explanations on the quiz doesn't make their provided answer on Question 4 any more correct or defensible.
@tylermwhite I think you’re getting tripped up on the idea of a winner. It’s a model, not the actual way that humans speak and communicate. Like I tell my high school students: the map is not the territory; the model is not reality.
The point of this whole exercise isn’t to follow a rigid set of steps whenever you encounter a comparative. It’s to use this model as a tool to aid in your understanding.
An analogous sentence:
“Nobody would honestly say that Tim keeps his room clean more often than not.”
Take out the context, and it’s “Tim keeps his room clean more often than not.” The comparative has not changed, but the context gives it a totally different meaning. If that shift in meaning is stunlocking you when you use this model, maybe try using a different method for analyzing comparatives?
@TobiStein Mr. Stein, amazing appeal to authority (teacher) followed by a complete sidestepping of my well-ordered argument only to engage in a straw man. You're evidently the one "stunlocked."
I am left wondering if your overt and unhelpful defense of 7Sage has something to do with the company being owned by The Sage Group PLC (SGE.L) listed on the London stock exchange; whose primary shareholders are institutions, the largest of which being BlackRock, Inc. I'm at a loss for another explanation as to why a presumably busy man with a teaching career would either spend time on this message board or take the effort to make such water-muddying comments. Bye and good riddance.
@tylermwhite I wish you only the best, man. Was just trying to help.
Soooo I'm very confused on question 4 - since there is no statistical evidence to show that the comparative statement is even true, how can we say that humans do act more selfishly? How can we actually declare that the "winner" since the beginning part of the statement essentially says we don't know if this is true?
@jozwiakhm I agree was confused if it says no statistical evidence but than JY said selfish is the winner yet there is no evidence.
I did surprisingly well on this. With that being said, I'm hoping that this will actually help me digest lsat questions lol I have test anxiety.
its good to see I'm not the only one thrown by question 2. lol