I'm going to say that I got question 2 right. I was correct in deducing that neither was the winner. The explanation just made things feel over complicated. A is not more likely to be bought in comparison to B. Vice versa for the opposite: B vs. A.
@D.K._DANDY same? My answer for the winner was either or since there is a possibility of either being equally bought or human cell/ animal testing being bought. There is no definitive answer because of they key phrase: "are no more likely to."
Kinda funny that those who truly represent the will of the people are not influenced by criticism (criticism: a great way for people to express their will)
5/5. But for Step 1 in Q # 5, I interpreted "rights of any people currently alive" to mean that any rights they have will not be of greater importance than the right of future generations to preserve their artistic heritage.
For 5, wouldn't the referential of rights for the second group also be "to have artistic heritage preserved". I'm confused how we can jump to the argument assuming they will destroy it.
@dancingqueen138 I don't think the content in parentheses is fact, it's more mapping the information onto to something concrete so it's easier to parse the comparative. the emphasis is on the "rights of future generations vs the rights of any presently living individual." The argument doesn't tell us what presently living individuals would do, but assuming some kind of action can help pick up on what is being actually compared.
Is this correct for question 4: Comparing: injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1980 vs injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1950. What we're comparing them on: Which makes a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries? Winner: injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts in 1980.
@Akrame26 Hey! It's your favourite brain-rot helper! Let me see if I can simplify this for ya.
Comparatives are just a fancy way of comparing two things on some value/characteristic. The lessons on comparatives are not meant to confuse, but it's just more of a refresher. Let me give you an example:
"Iron Man is stronger than Batman." This sentence (debatable) is comparing two subjects on a value. You have two people (Iron Man vs. Batman), and you have the value (strength).
One thing that I like to keep in mind is to look for the hard R's, the -er behind any adjective: Stronger, richer, taller, faster. Those should signal Hey, something is being compared. And that's all. You may notice that just because a sentence says "Iron Man is stronger than Batman," you don't know exactly HOW much stronger. Therefore, you can only validly (logically) conclude that Iron Man is STRONGER than Batman, but you don't know the specifics.
Let's apply this logic to question 5:
"The right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved is of greater importance than the rights of any presently living individual."
Your inner dialogue should look like this:
Eyes: I see the -er! That means that there's a comparative!
Brain: So what does that mean?
Eyes: Uhm, I think that just means that something is greater than something else.
Brain: Hmm. Greater importance. And the two subjects are the right of future generations to keep art against the rights of any presently living hooman.
TLDR: This lesson is just warning you that there are comparative sentences in the LSAT. I'd say that out of the 25+ questions per section, around 6-7 of them contain some comparative. I also make the error of reading a stimulus and my eyes rolling back because I'm mentally drained, so this is my strategy:
Look for the -er (Daft Punk would say: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger)
Identify the two [or more!] subjects going head-to-head in the ring (Iron Man vs. Batman, etc.)
See who comes out on top!
Whenever I see comparatives, I think Yugi-Oh, and my brain goes:
For Q5, would it be incorrect to assume that the 'rights of any presently living individual' refers to their right to have their artistic heritage preserved?
I figured 'the rights' was a referential to 'the right to have their artistic heritage preserved'.
Upon reviewing, I'm wondering: is it that "the rights" isn't referential becuase it's plural?
I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.
Can someone help me understand why 3 is correct being that it may be both or the one is more likely than the other but how in Comparatives 2 Question 4 with similar phrasing tyhis was not the case?
for the ski resort question, i want to confirm the whole for both 1950 and 1980 is the total number of injuries that happened on the slopes for all the years the ski resort has been open(say they opened in 1930 and are still open, would the years range be 1930-2025)? thank you!
@lagata No, it's comparing events in 1950 vs events in 1980. Each one is comparing the percentage of injuries that were on slope (while skiing) vs other, could be slipping in the parking lot, falling in the bathroom, whatever, but at the resort. They are saying the on slope piece of the pie (%) was bigger in 1950 than 1980.
#feedback: Question 3 is really triggering and should be swapped out for literally any other comparison. I don't understand why you had to include that.
I don't mean to be condescending of your situation, but in law school and the study of law in general, you're gonna be looking at some pretty triggering cases and data, not to mention, in the LSAT, they showcase similar language comparisons and arguments. I believe that is why they chose to include this question, I don't believe they are actively trying to trigger people.
In Question #3, I took 'those months during several preceding and following years' as one grouped set of years vs two distinct groups of years, because there was no comma before the 'and', making it ambiguous. Isn't that what the whole Oxford comma issue was related to in the trucker contract suit several year back, and why the truckers won a 5MM settlement?
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.
63 comments
#2 tripped me up on the winner part.
I need to redo the comparative section again at some point.
didn't know 2 was a tie
This felt much easier than the previous exercise.
@paigeisabel Literally
I'm going to say that I got question 2 right. I was correct in deducing that neither was the winner. The explanation just made things feel over complicated. A is not more likely to be bought in comparison to B. Vice versa for the opposite: B vs. A.
@D.K._DANDY same? My answer for the winner was either or since there is a possibility of either being equally bought or human cell/ animal testing being bought. There is no definitive answer because of they key phrase: "are no more likely to."
@Cynthializ I' say your answer is valid ("either or"). Whichever way you put it, as long as the meaning is the same, you are correct.
Question #1:
Kinda funny that those who truly represent the will of the people are not influenced by criticism (criticism: a great way for people to express their will)
I feel like I have to repeat the comparative section.
negative comparatives lesson came in clutch for #2
4/5!! question 2 did get me, what's the best way to think about it? I watched the video, but skill kinda confused
5/5 finally!
5/5. But for Step 1 in Q # 5, I interpreted "rights of any people currently alive" to mean that any rights they have will not be of greater importance than the right of future generations to preserve their artistic heritage.
5/5 lets go baby
Q1 was hard lol. I think its also because the sentences are longer and it negative comparatives.
That "no" threw me for a loop! Will definitely be more on the lookout for negatives now :)
For 5, wouldn't the referential of rights for the second group also be "to have artistic heritage preserved". I'm confused how we can jump to the argument assuming they will destroy it.
@dancingqueen138 I don't think the content in parentheses is fact, it's more mapping the information onto to something concrete so it's easier to parse the comparative. the emphasis is on the "rights of future generations vs the rights of any presently living individual." The argument doesn't tell us what presently living individuals would do, but assuming some kind of action can help pick up on what is being actually compared.
Is this correct for question 4: Comparing: injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1980 vs injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts in 1950. What we're comparing them on: Which makes a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries? Winner: injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts in 1980.
@VanillaCat Yes! In comparing the number of injuries in 1980 and 1950, the winner is 1980s.
@MarcusTsang Goat
5/5 finally!
Im gonna come back to this I am confused a little but I do get the concept... if anyone can help me that would be much apprecaited.
@Akrame26 Hey! It's your favourite brain-rot helper! Let me see if I can simplify this for ya.
Comparatives are just a fancy way of comparing two things on some value/characteristic. The lessons on comparatives are not meant to confuse, but it's just more of a refresher. Let me give you an example:
"Iron Man is stronger than Batman." This sentence (debatable) is comparing two subjects on a value. You have two people (Iron Man vs. Batman), and you have the value (strength).
One thing that I like to keep in mind is to look for the hard R's, the -er behind any adjective: Stronger, richer, taller, faster. Those should signal Hey, something is being compared. And that's all. You may notice that just because a sentence says "Iron Man is stronger than Batman," you don't know exactly HOW much stronger. Therefore, you can only validly (logically) conclude that Iron Man is STRONGER than Batman, but you don't know the specifics.
Let's apply this logic to question 5:
"The right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved is of greater importance than the rights of any presently living individual."
Your inner dialogue should look like this:
Eyes: I see the -er! That means that there's a comparative!
Brain: So what does that mean?
Eyes: Uhm, I think that just means that something is greater than something else.
Brain: Hmm. Greater importance. And the two subjects are the right of future generations to keep art against the rights of any presently living hooman.
TLDR: This lesson is just warning you that there are comparative sentences in the LSAT. I'd say that out of the 25+ questions per section, around 6-7 of them contain some comparative. I also make the error of reading a stimulus and my eyes rolling back because I'm mentally drained, so this is my strategy:
Look for the -er (Daft Punk would say: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger)
Identify the two [or more!] subjects going head-to-head in the ring (Iron Man vs. Batman, etc.)
See who comes out on top!
Whenever I see comparatives, I think Yugi-Oh, and my brain goes:
@MarcusTsang this is awesome thank you Marcus! :)
@MarcusTsang Love this. Thank you Marcus :)
For Q5, would it be incorrect to assume that the 'rights of any presently living individual' refers to their right to have their artistic heritage preserved?
I figured 'the rights' was a referential to 'the right to have their artistic heritage preserved'.
Upon reviewing, I'm wondering: is it that "the rights" isn't referential becuase it's plural?
@AryanNooshi
I also thought that.
I think the assumption is still correct because there's no actual clarification on what rights those presently living individuals have to art, so you can really make it up. I think just as long as it makes sense and you understood the comparative its okay to assume that.
Can someone help me understand why 3 is correct being that it may be both or the one is more likely than the other but how in Comparatives 2 Question 4 with similar phrasing tyhis was not the case?
5/5!!!
for the ski resort question, i want to confirm the whole for both 1950 and 1980 is the total number of injuries that happened on the slopes for all the years the ski resort has been open(say they opened in 1930 and are still open, would the years range be 1930-2025)? thank you!
@lagata No, it's comparing events in 1950 vs events in 1980. Each one is comparing the percentage of injuries that were on slope (while skiing) vs other, could be slipping in the parking lot, falling in the bathroom, whatever, but at the resort. They are saying the on slope piece of the pie (%) was bigger in 1950 than 1980.
i didnt scroll back enough to see if this was addressed but question 3 has a typo in the answer, its supposed to say,
"and of the several years after 1929(1930, 1931*--it says 1921--, etc)
#feedback: Question 3 is really triggering and should be swapped out for literally any other comparison. I don't understand why you had to include that.
I don't mean to be condescending of your situation, but in law school and the study of law in general, you're gonna be looking at some pretty triggering cases and data, not to mention, in the LSAT, they showcase similar language comparisons and arguments. I believe that is why they chose to include this question, I don't believe they are actively trying to trigger people.
In Question #3, I took 'those months during several preceding and following years' as one grouped set of years vs two distinct groups of years, because there was no comma before the 'and', making it ambiguous. Isn't that what the whole Oxford comma issue was related to in the trucker contract suit several year back, and why the truckers won a 5MM settlement?
How is #2 different than #5 on the first skill builder, "no more evidence to show" selfishly/unselfishly? I don't understand.
@emmavandyke I'm also extremely confused by this