so with comparison statements that depend on "required" it seems like its better to ignore whatever comes before what's "required" and first focus in on the "A than B" portion of the statement. Would it be fair to say that " blah blah required" is likely going to contain the quality or trait that is being compared?
I don't know about others, but negative comparisons are tough for me so I like to think about it like this:
Artists are no less politically insightful than non-artists.
Acknowledge there could be a tie
Switch out "no less" with "more"
Then you know artists COULD be the winner
I don't know why I just have a hard time identifying who the winner could be and if they are on the "more" or "less" side. Not sure if this makes sense to other people but wanted to put it here to see if it might help someone. :)
The first question is tripping me out. How do we know that the passage is referring to the months before winter months? When it says “than they had previously” doesn’t that refer to previously as in previous winter months?
I put: Public places now vs public places in previous winter months
Thing being compared: maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation vs. maintain a retaliatory force equal to or less than that of any other nation.
Quality compared: How to maintain maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations?
Winner: maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
The way I dissected Question 3 was to rewrite it as the following:
To maintain maximum deterrence from an aggressor by other nations, a nation must maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
This allowed me to break apart the dependent clause, and focus only on the comparison illustrated in the independent clause after the comma. Does this method resonate with anyone else? Does it seem efficient?
For Question . How would one know whether "previously" refers to months before winter (like fall), or winter months in previous years? i get that its an inference but i feel like "previously" is so ambiguous it could go either way.
question 4 anyone identify A and B as " sophisticated instruments available" vs "sophisticated instruments not available" then the comparative elements would be "which can detect planets outside the solar system"
and the "winner" was="those instruments not available
would all this be a correct interpretation of question 4? Thank you!
For question 1, why couldn't the comparison be "the winter months now" vs. "the winter months previously" (as in last winter season). I know "previously" is a very ambiguous word so how are we to decipher a previous month vs a previous series of months (last years winter season)
#feedback Could the following be another way to answer Question3?
Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
1. Greater retaliatory force vs Lesser retaliatory force
2. Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations.
Cannot tell if I am practicing the approach correctly. However, I feel like I am on the right track with the outcome of this scenario.
The arguments of those who have studied late 20th century analytic philosophy are far less likely to be riddled with presumptions subconsciously formed through the uncritical acceptance of language’s various, heavy, and misleading baggage than are those who have not.
TBC: those who studied 20th century analytical philosophy v. those who have not
QOC: the arguments and their level of presumptions and baggage
For question 3, I think I got the right idea? The wording started to trip me up a little bit, but maybe someone can provide feedback on my work here...
Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
A & B - nations that maintain a retaliatory force v. any other nation
Comparing - who will maintain maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations
Winner - the nation that maintains a retaliatory force
Question 2 stated "some artists are equally insightful as some of the non-artists -- or some of the non-artists are less politically insightful than some artists." However, I came to this conclusion: "Some artists could be equally as politically insightful or more politically insightful that some well educated persons who were not artists." Would this be the same conclusion?
1. some artists vs some reasonably well educated person who are not artists
2. Who is more or equally politically insightful
3. some artists
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!
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.
77 comments
finally 5/5 after a 4/5 streak :)
so with comparison statements that depend on "required" it seems like its better to ignore whatever comes before what's "required" and first focus in on the "A than B" portion of the statement. Would it be fair to say that " blah blah required" is likely going to contain the quality or trait that is being compared?
I don't know about others, but negative comparisons are tough for me so I like to think about it like this:
Artists are no less politically insightful than non-artists.
Acknowledge there could be a tie
Switch out "no less" with "more"
Then you know artists COULD be the winner
I don't know why I just have a hard time identifying who the winner could be and if they are on the "more" or "less" side. Not sure if this makes sense to other people but wanted to put it here to see if it might help someone. :)
Why does this not work for number 4?
1. current instruments vs more sophisticated instruments
2. which can detect planets outside our solar system?
3. more sophisticated instruments
im getting it now :)
#3 finally clicked for me omg its been 30 minutes YESSS
The first question is tripping me out. How do we know that the passage is referring to the months before winter months? When it says “than they had previously” doesn’t that refer to previously as in previous winter months?
I put: Public places now vs public places in previous winter months
Which did more people frequent on average?
Public places now
Help?
For Question 3, I interpreted it as:
Thing being compared: maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation vs. maintain a retaliatory force equal to or less than that of any other nation.
Quality compared: How to maintain maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations?
Winner: maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
Can anyone explain why this is incorrect?
Question 5 was insane but surprisingly the easiest one after I start breaking it apart!
could question 4 also be interpreted as
Things being compared: currently available instruments vs. more sophisticated instruments
quality being compared: ability to detect planets outside our solar system
"Winner:" more sophisticated instruments
or is flawed understanding of the point being made?
John Thomas with another banger
The way I dissected Question 3 was to rewrite it as the following:
To maintain maximum deterrence from an aggressor by other nations, a nation must maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
This allowed me to break apart the dependent clause, and focus only on the comparison illustrated in the independent clause after the comma. Does this method resonate with anyone else? Does it seem efficient?
For Question . How would one know whether "previously" refers to months before winter (like fall), or winter months in previous years? i get that its an inference but i feel like "previously" is so ambiguous it could go either way.
When will John Thomas miss
5/5!!!
this section seem this video and last seem quiet.
question 4 anyone identify A and B as " sophisticated instruments available" vs "sophisticated instruments not available" then the comparative elements would be "which can detect planets outside the solar system"
and the "winner" was="those instruments not available
would all this be a correct interpretation of question 4? Thank you!
For question 1, why couldn't the comparison be "the winter months now" vs. "the winter months previously" (as in last winter season). I know "previously" is a very ambiguous word so how are we to decipher a previous month vs a previous series of months (last years winter season)
5/5 I ate lowkey :)
#feedback Could the following be another way to answer Question3?
Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
1. Greater retaliatory force vs Lesser retaliatory force
2. Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations.
3. A nation with GREATER retaliatory force
Cannot tell if I am practicing the approach correctly. However, I feel like I am on the right track with the outcome of this scenario.
The arguments of those who have studied late 20th century analytic philosophy are far less likely to be riddled with presumptions subconsciously formed through the uncritical acceptance of language’s various, heavy, and misleading baggage than are those who have not.
TBC: those who studied 20th century analytical philosophy v. those who have not
QOC: the arguments and their level of presumptions and baggage
W: 20th century philosophy studiers
I feel like this prompt leaves room for inference in a big way. I went with instruments of the future.
Detecting planets outside our solar system requires more sophisticated instruments than are currently available.
TBC: instruments of the future v. instruments that are currently available now
QOC: ability to detect planets outside our solar system
W: sophisticated instruments of the future.
Please inlcude thoughts on this.
For question 3, I think I got the right idea? The wording started to trip me up a little bit, but maybe someone can provide feedback on my work here...
Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.
A & B - nations that maintain a retaliatory force v. any other nation
Comparing - who will maintain maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations
Winner - the nation that maintains a retaliatory force
Question 2 stated "some artists are equally insightful as some of the non-artists -- or some of the non-artists are less politically insightful than some artists." However, I came to this conclusion: "Some artists could be equally as politically insightful or more politically insightful that some well educated persons who were not artists." Would this be the same conclusion?
Question 2: Could this response also work:
1. some artists vs some reasonably well educated person who are not artists
2. Who is more or equally politically insightful
3. some artists