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.
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.
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?
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!
#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.
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?
I am noticing that I am breaking down these sentences into smaller components (simpler). I am getting the correct outcome but my TBC (things being compared) and QOC (quality of comparison) are not always aligned with the answer's breakdown.
For question #5, I correctly identified the second and third part in my answer, but I struggled with the first part about the two things being compared. My answer was that it was "the rights of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved vs. the right of living individuals to have their artistic heritage preserved." However, after looking at the correct answers provided, the first part is "the right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved vs. the rights of people currently alive (to do things that would damage the artistic heritage of future generations)."
I understand that the LSAT tends to test implied comparative relationships, which we've gone over in previous lessons, but I’m unclear about where the assumption that living individuals might damage future generations’ artistic heritage comes from. There’s no context in the prompt to suggest anything of the sort, so why is this assumption considered valid? What’s the reasoning behind interpreting the statement in this way? Is what I originally answered with considered wrong?
#feedback In the answer for question 3, both times "several years after 1929 (1930, 1921, etc.)" should read "several years after 1929 (1930, 1931, etc.)"
For question 5, I got the right answer, but I was unable to understand how we landed on the conclusion that the opposite of preserving artistic heritage was people currently alive doing things that would damage artistic heritage.
For question 2, here's what I wrote. Is this the same as the answer?
Consumers are no more likely to buy products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells than they are to buy products whose safety was tested on animals.
Two things being compared: products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells vs. products whose safety was tested on animals
Quality/Characteristic being compared: which products are consumers NOT more likely to buy?
Winner: products whose safety was tested on human-cells cultures
For question #5, I'm still not understanding how we are able to assume that "the rights of any presently living individual" refers to the right of any presently living individual to destroy a piece of artistic heritage. How do we assume these are the "rights" they're talking about?
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.
51 comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
I am noticing that I am breaking down these sentences into smaller components (simpler). I am getting the correct outcome but my TBC (things being compared) and QOC (quality of comparison) are not always aligned with the answer's breakdown.
For question #5, I correctly identified the second and third part in my answer, but I struggled with the first part about the two things being compared. My answer was that it was "the rights of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved vs. the right of living individuals to have their artistic heritage preserved." However, after looking at the correct answers provided, the first part is "the right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved vs. the rights of people currently alive (to do things that would damage the artistic heritage of future generations)."
I understand that the LSAT tends to test implied comparative relationships, which we've gone over in previous lessons, but I’m unclear about where the assumption that living individuals might damage future generations’ artistic heritage comes from. There’s no context in the prompt to suggest anything of the sort, so why is this assumption considered valid? What’s the reasoning behind interpreting the statement in this way? Is what I originally answered with considered wrong?
#feedback In the answer for question 3, both times "several years after 1929 (1930, 1921, etc.)" should read "several years after 1929 (1930, 1931, etc.)"
For question 5, I got the right answer, but I was unable to understand how we landed on the conclusion that the opposite of preserving artistic heritage was people currently alive doing things that would damage artistic heritage.
For question 2, here's what I wrote. Is this the same as the answer?
Consumers are no more likely to buy products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells than they are to buy products whose safety was tested on animals.
Two things being compared: products whose safety was tested on cultures of human cells vs. products whose safety was tested on animals
Quality/Characteristic being compared: which products are consumers NOT more likely to buy?
Winner: products whose safety was tested on human-cells cultures
Finally I get 5/5 omg i've been waiting for this moment!
For question #5, I'm still not understanding how we are able to assume that "the rights of any presently living individual" refers to the right of any presently living individual to destroy a piece of artistic heritage. How do we assume these are the "rights" they're talking about?
This really helped! Thank you.