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.
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?
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.
I think I understand question 4 after some time. What helped was ignoring the "no statistical evidence is provided to show" and looking just at "humans act selfishly MORE often than they act unselfishly." That second claim is now, like the video said, straight forward. The part that tripped me up initially was the claim that there wasn't evidence of this. Thinking of the evidence part AFTER the fact is the only way I was able to see the "winner" as humans act selfishly more often.
For question four wouldn't it be that either humans act more unselfishly or they are the same rate? All we know is that humans do not act more selfishly than they do selfishly
this may be a dumb question, but does anyone know if the first one in these comparisons normally the winner? if not, which case would there be a winner for the second?
Kind of nitpicky but in question 1 wouldn't there be physically less corn seeds this year due to the surplus being smaller? In the explanation JY says there is just a surplus beyond what is needed but there is literally less corn seeds due to the surplus being smaller this year.
I keep doing the questions with "than to," differently from JY but I think it's equivalent. For example, "scientists have found that giant pandas are more similar genetically to bears than to raccoons." Here is JY's answer:
Bears vs. Raccoons
Which is a giant panda genetically more similar to?
Winner: Bears
But I did it this way:
Pandas vs. Racoons
Which more similar to bears
Pandas
I think these are equivalent, because they both say Pandas are more similar to bears than Raccoons.
Would we be expected to infer the comparison of interglacial periods to glacial periods? I compared interglacial periods to "non interglacial periods". my way is less efficient but does it miss any information?
Could #1 also be interpreted as surplus of corn seeds this year vs surplus of corn seeds last year?
The quality we'd be comparing is which would be smaller, and the winner basically stays the same.
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
189 comments
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.
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?
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?
Can someone explain interglacial v glacial to me, I really don't get it @@
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.
I got to question 3 a little differently.
I feel I am on the right track but could be adding steps that will cut into my time strategy.
QOC = Quality of Comparison
CH = Characteristics
W = "Winner"
The population of game ducks at the western lake contains a lower percentage of adult males than the population at the eastern lake contains.
QOC = W-lake ducks v. E-lake ducks
CH = percentage of adult males in the population of ducks
W = W-lake
I think I understand question 4 after some time. What helped was ignoring the "no statistical evidence is provided to show" and looking just at "humans act selfishly MORE often than they act unselfishly." That second claim is now, like the video said, straight forward. The part that tripped me up initially was the claim that there wasn't evidence of this. Thinking of the evidence part AFTER the fact is the only way I was able to see the "winner" as humans act selfishly more often.
In question 2, would it be fair for me to identify the other period that is opposing "interglacial" as a "normal" or "typical" period?
For question four wouldn't it be that either humans act more unselfishly or they are the same rate? All we know is that humans do not act more selfishly than they do selfishly
so is there a winner in question four, or can it be a tie?
For question one, is this also a valid answer:
There is a smaller surplus of corn seeds this year than there was last year.
1. surplus of corn seeds this year vs surplus of corn seeds last year
2. which is smaller?
3. winner: the surplus of corn seeds this year
Question four starts with “no statistical evidence” and my brain is like well clearly there’s no winner
gotta fight my brain
this may be a dumb question, but does anyone know if the first one in these comparisons normally the winner? if not, which case would there be a winner for the second?
Question 4 confused me, i wrote:
1. selfishly vs. unselfishly
2. how much statistical evidence is provided to show that humans act selfishly more often than they act unselfishly
3. winner: either humans act equally selfishly and unselfishly or humans act more unselfishly
Can someone explain why this would be wrong?
is it ok to say question 4 is a relative claim and question 5 is an absolute claim ?
Kind of nitpicky but in question 1 wouldn't there be physically less corn seeds this year due to the surplus being smaller? In the explanation JY says there is just a surplus beyond what is needed but there is literally less corn seeds due to the surplus being smaller this year.
5/5!!!
I keep doing the questions with "than to," differently from JY but I think it's equivalent. For example, "scientists have found that giant pandas are more similar genetically to bears than to raccoons." Here is JY's answer:
Bears vs. Raccoons
Which is a giant panda genetically more similar to?
Winner: Bears
But I did it this way:
Pandas vs. Racoons
Which more similar to bears
Pandas
I think these are equivalent, because they both say Pandas are more similar to bears than Raccoons.
Would we be expected to infer the comparison of interglacial periods to glacial periods? I compared interglacial periods to "non interglacial periods". my way is less efficient but does it miss any information?
Could #1 also be interpreted as surplus of corn seeds this year vs surplus of corn seeds last year?
The quality we'd be comparing is which would be smaller, and the winner basically stays the same.