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.
@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?
@CollinEsquirol It is not expecting background, but just grammatical understanding. The prefix "inter-" means "between" or "among". “Interglacial” literally means between glacial periods. The natural binary contrast is: glacial periods v interglacial periods.
@CollinEsquirol I said to myself while reading the statement: Normal periods vs. interglacial periods. Which is not "correct" but it didn't matter in terms of my understanding.
@CollinEsquirol You can use the idea of "translating" sentences with inferring so you could end up with something like The composition of seawater changes more slowly than it does in interglacial periods (as compared to what?) as compared to other periods. You don't have to use glacial periods verbatim.
@astrysk if you're asking for a meaning of the words. Basically glacial periods are when glaciers cover large portions of the earth (ice ages). Interglacial is a warm period when we are not in an ice age (i.e. like right now).
The earth has gone through many cycles of glacial (ice age) and interglacial (warmer temperature) periods throughout its millions of years of existence.
Anyone else just start yelling at the screen when he starts trying to explain how he got to the word glacial periods, "you just made up the word!!" Like, how? I will never be out here like oh yeah what is the opposite of interglacial, glacial! like no. I am over here being like it doesn't tell us in the question and we should not try to use outside knowledge on this test like wtf????
Does anyone have any tips for navigating questions like #4? I got it incorrect because I interpreted it as "Because no statistical evidence is provided", humans act selfishly and unselfishly to an equal amount or are unselfish more often. Obviously this is wrong, and the grammatical explanation makes sense, but it's often I find myself tripping up on questions like this that don't follow the conventions of Canada/English grammar or have Oxford commas.
@ArjunK Well, technically, you are right. I think this is just a drill that makes you REALLY sensitive to identifying and understanding comparatives.
The question, for the sake of analysis, is divided into two parts: the comparative and the contextual. The comparative:
"humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly,"
If taken by itself, it does mean comparatively that more often, people are selfish.
BUT as the video says, when considering the context:
"No statistical evidence is provided to show that..."
We don't know if the comparison is true because we have no evidence.
Think of this example:
"No evidence shows that cats jump higher than dogs."
The comparative part says "cats jump higher than dogs," but do we know that for certain? No, because we don't have evidence to show that. In the previous lessons, we were told to make reasonable inferences. Is it a reasonable inference to believe that cats jump higher than dogs without evidence showing it? Highly unlikely.
We can apply this same reasonable inference to the question. Is it reasonable to infer that humans act more selfishly than unselfishly without evidence showing it to be true? Highly unlikely. Therefore, even though we can identify that the question is trying to tell us "hey, there's a comparison here," it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion from the comparison because there is no evidence for it.
TLDR: For those of you who thought that #4 has no comparative, technically, you are right.
@MarcusTsang Thanks for this explanation. Similar to Arjun my thought process was that since there is no evidence of humans acting selfishly more than unselfishly, they must act selfishly and unselfishly equally or they act unselfishly more often than selfishly. Now from your explanation I know that there is no evidence for either really in the claim. But my biggest takeaway from the negative comparisons lesson was the two correct interpretations that can come from a negative comparative relationship. But in this case a lack of evidence for X>Y doesn't necessarily imply evidence for X=Y or Y>X because there's no evidence for anything? I'm a bit confused about how to draw inferences from these sorts of questions, but I guess that's the point that no inferences can be drawn in either direction because there's no evidence provided?
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
224 comments
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.
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
Question 2 does not make sense. How are you supposed to infer glacial from interglacial without any background?
@CollinEsquirol It is not expecting background, but just grammatical understanding. The prefix "inter-" means "between" or "among". “Interglacial” literally means between glacial periods. The natural binary contrast is: glacial periods v interglacial periods.
@CollinEsquirol I said to myself while reading the statement: Normal periods vs. interglacial periods. Which is not "correct" but it didn't matter in terms of my understanding.
@Bayside That's what i said
@CollinEsquirol You can use the idea of "translating" sentences with inferring so you could end up with something like The composition of seawater changes more slowly than it does in interglacial periods (as compared to what?) as compared to other periods. You don't have to use glacial periods verbatim.
Can someone explain interglacial v glacial to me, I really don't get it @@
@astrysk if you're asking for a meaning of the words. Basically glacial periods are when glaciers cover large portions of the earth (ice ages). Interglacial is a warm period when we are not in an ice age (i.e. like right now).
The earth has gone through many cycles of glacial (ice age) and interglacial (warmer temperature) periods throughout its millions of years of existence.
Anyone else just start yelling at the screen when he starts trying to explain how he got to the word glacial periods, "you just made up the word!!" Like, how? I will never be out here like oh yeah what is the opposite of interglacial, glacial! like no. I am over here being like it doesn't tell us in the question and we should not try to use outside knowledge on this test like wtf????
lol I went either/or on question 4
oh lord the 4th one was terrible
lmao "4 is pretty straight forward" oh...
Does anyone have any tips for navigating questions like #4? I got it incorrect because I interpreted it as "Because no statistical evidence is provided", humans act selfishly and unselfishly to an equal amount or are unselfish more often. Obviously this is wrong, and the grammatical explanation makes sense, but it's often I find myself tripping up on questions like this that don't follow the conventions of Canada/English grammar or have Oxford commas.
@ArjunK Well, technically, you are right. I think this is just a drill that makes you REALLY sensitive to identifying and understanding comparatives.
The question, for the sake of analysis, is divided into two parts: the comparative and the contextual. The comparative:
"humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly,"
If taken by itself, it does mean comparatively that more often, people are selfish.
BUT as the video says, when considering the context:
"No statistical evidence is provided to show that..."
We don't know if the comparison is true because we have no evidence.
Think of this example:
"No evidence shows that cats jump higher than dogs."
The comparative part says "cats jump higher than dogs," but do we know that for certain? No, because we don't have evidence to show that. In the previous lessons, we were told to make reasonable inferences. Is it a reasonable inference to believe that cats jump higher than dogs without evidence showing it? Highly unlikely.
We can apply this same reasonable inference to the question. Is it reasonable to infer that humans act more selfishly than unselfishly without evidence showing it to be true? Highly unlikely. Therefore, even though we can identify that the question is trying to tell us "hey, there's a comparison here," it is not reasonable to draw a conclusion from the comparison because there is no evidence for it.
TLDR: For those of you who thought that #4 has no comparative, technically, you are right.
@MarcusTsang Thanks for this explanation. Similar to Arjun my thought process was that since there is no evidence of humans acting selfishly more than unselfishly, they must act selfishly and unselfishly equally or they act unselfishly more often than selfishly. Now from your explanation I know that there is no evidence for either really in the claim. But my biggest takeaway from the negative comparisons lesson was the two correct interpretations that can come from a negative comparative relationship. But in this case a lack of evidence for X>Y doesn't necessarily imply evidence for X=Y or Y>X because there's no evidence for anything? I'm a bit confused about how to draw inferences from these sorts of questions, but I guess that's the point that no inferences can be drawn in either direction because there's no evidence provided?