In the stimulus, it says "A field of study is genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology"

I translated that sentence to mean that IF a field of study has a unique methodology, THEN it is genuinely autonomous discipline.

But Superprep book explanation says "all that a field of study requires to be a genuinely autonomous discipline is a unique methodology" which I translate to mean that unique methodology is a necessary condition instead of sufficient condition.

I highly doubt that the Superprep book makes any mistake, but which translation is correct?

Thank you

The correct answer here made zero sense to me.

In answer B, he says she says "Hey, recycled paper isn't necessarily lower quality. In fact, the best paper was made was made from recycled materials..."

How is that irrelevant?

Frankly, all the answer choices seemed a bit zany in this one.

Hi, I'm confused with these statements. They refer to some kind of flaws, but can't seem to pinpoint exactly what they are.

Does anyone know what they're called?

1. The argument assumes without warrant that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which that phenomenon occurs (in other words, the argument assumes that one way is the only way)

2. It sets up a dichotomy between alternatives that are not known to be exclusive. (in other words, the argument assumes a limited number of possibilities when there could be more)

First off, my apologizes for posting twice in such a close time period, but wanted to get some advice on my personal situation.

I began studying for the June 2016 date in mid-January using the Powerscore LR & LG Bibles, which I finished a couple of weeks ago. I have skimmed through the RC Bible, but I know it's pretty much regarded as worthless, and I already have a pretty good section performance so I'm not planning on reading it fully or doing any of the exercises. My diagnostic in January was a 155, and in the first couple weeks of studying I regrettably took a couple more PTs scoring around the same; after realizing that this was a bad strategy I decided to wait until I had completed the core material before taking another PT. After finishing the LG Bible and while reading the LR Bible I took some practice LG sections to drill, which is when I discovered 7sage and found the LG video explanations. The 7sage LG video explanations helped me translate the raw skills I had learned into a mechanical game strategy. In retrospect I would have obviously rather just used the 7sage curriculum, but at this point I think it would do more harm than good. I recently took my first PT since finishing the LG & LR Bibles and scored a 166, followed by another the next day at 163, so I feel confident that I've made at least a 6-7 point improvement so far. With a little over 11 weeks till the June date and another 40 PTs to do, I feel pretty confident that my target score of 168 is within reach. I think the next few points of improvement will come from honing in my LG approach, and maintaining higher reading focus on LR & LG, which alone should yield a couple more raw points based on my review of my most recent PTs. Overall, I feel confident when approaching the test; obviously there are still many improvements to be made, but I don't have that "lost" or "hopeless" feeling with the fast approaching test date.

At this point, given my results and goal, should I just continue on my self-study method, take the remaining PTs and use BR between PTs? Or should I postpone my test date and do the 7sage curriculum?

Based on a couple of other advice threads I've read, a lot of people push delaying a test date, but a lot of those threads have been people on their 3rd attempt, or people that feel woefully unprepared for an approaching test date. So I'm curious to see if the consensus will change.

Thanks in advance!

I made this comment on the video 5 months ago, but I still would like to get an answer or opinion on this: So for MSS/MBT questions containing other people’s opinion and author’s opinion, we should always choose answer that states author’s opinion because that is what must be true based on stimulus…correct?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-3-question-21

I am struggling very bad with time issues regarding RC.

When it takes me around 12/15 minutes per passage, I get all of them correct or miss only one.

However, when I try to speed up my pace down to 10 minutes per passage, I do terrible.

My game plan was to get down to 10 minutes, then 8 minutes, so eventually I can get through all of the passages for June.

SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME!!!!

Admin edit: Please do not post LSAT questions word for word.

I'm having trouble with this Fact Pattern and Question Stem.

I'm assuming it is supposed to be faulty because the FP makes the switch from talking about tall tulips to tall plants.

However, we know that tulips are the ONLY plants in the garden. And we also know they are all tulips. How is it faulty to make the step that the only plants in the garden are tall plants?

Anybody from this area interested in starting a study group? I will be taking the Blueprint LSAT course in April and supplementing it with 7sage

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/introducing-new-drugs-strengthen-question

Looking to get a better idea of the logic on answer choice E, which is an incorrect answer choice.

I understand that A is the correct choice because reasoning from an example which is already the best case compared to alternatives strengthens the argument, given the premises.

Comment from @DumbHollywoodActor was helpful in shedding some light on E's logic:

(E) mixes up the logic. If you take the contrapositive, you can see it more clearly: “if most new drugs shouldn’t be on the market, then the new antihistamine shouldn’t be on the market.” The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

However, I would like to understand this statement better: The argument provides the necessary condition, but that doesn’t mean it gets to conclude the sufficient condition.

We must accept the premises and the conclusion as true for LSAT questions. I get that if we accept the premise as true, that is affirming the necessary condition of the logic in choice E. But, if we accept the conclusion as true, that also satisfies the sufficient condition of the logic.

Put simply, after reading the argument I am left with these two true pieces of information:

P: antihistamine should not be on the market (A)

C: these new drugs should not be on the market (B)

then E gives me this logic of "these new drugs should not be on the market" --> "antihistamine should not be on the market"

So, I'm left looking at that B--> A statement, and holding A and B in my hands, with no understanding of where to plug them in. If I plug B in, then I get A, but apparently that is not the correct answer.

Is it because the reasoning in this argument is inductive (that is, moving from a specific example to a general rule) and so it isn't helpful to say that "this general rule is the case" therefore "this specific examples is the case," since the argument is not applying a rule, but rather trying to support one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-3-question-13

I can't see the difference between the flaw in B and the the flaw in the incorrect answer choices....

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-02

Hey! Can someone explain to me why for (section 1 Q2) the answer is B? Frederick does not comment on representing genres at all......or did I miss something?

I'm wondering how folks actually organize the physical workspace for LG? How and where do you actually write on the paper? I'm kind of old and have done my current job for a couple of decades. In that context I've come to the conclusion that when I'm feeling in the weeds, it's usually reflected in my workspace. If my workspace feels dirty, I feel lost and underwater. Cleaning up the workspace is usually my first action when I have those feelings.

It seems that in the context of LG, the workspace is the page. How do people keep that page organized?

People often discourage erasures. Frequent copying of multiple game boards seems impractical. People also seem to discourage writing on master game boards.

I see the logic of these ideas, but they seem to crash up against reality fairly hard.

For example, if one is translating the rules as one goes, and then drawing inferences one is likely to end up with rules that are entirely represented on the game board and no longer need to take up physical or mental space in the rules list. One must either erase it, cross it out or leave it, none of which make for neat pages. After "crashing" rules together I often end up with a bunch of crossed out or erased rules and have a hard time recognizing which rules must still be considered. Likewise, I often end up with floaters in odd spaces, which doesn't provide clarity.

JY almost always uses his magical eraser when demonstrating because, I assume, it offers clarity. Other times there are obvious edits where the video has been paused and the rules and game boards re-written to provide clarity. That clean clarity seems to be a factor in his speed.

The LSAT allows neither erasers nor editing of the space/time continuum, so how do you folks keep your page relatively clean and organized?

Likewise, how do you handle questions wherein there are too many game boards to copy in a timely fashion. JY handles this by using his magic copy and paste feature and also his magical eraser. Again, I believe that magic is generally prohibited on the LSAT (?) and thus not an option. How do you handle conditions that are added by question stems without writing on your master boards?

Dear 7sage community,

Could someone please explain to me why answer E is correct? I can justify eliminating answers A,B,C,D, but not picking E. Most of all, I cannot comprehend how to apply the 'can be false' principle to a statement containing 'some' and a negation ('not'). By now my brain hurts from all the theories I tried to convince myself of.

Thanks a lot!

See here: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/the-embezzler-weaken-question

The Embezzler (weaken EXCEPT question)

This question gave a lot of people trouble, particularly regarding why answer choice (C) weakened the argument. After reflection, I believe I may have unpacked the reason why this is a clear cut wrong answer choice. However, I am wondering how C does not straight up contradict the conclusion of the argument, which we are not supposed to do in weaken questions. I am grateful for any input or feedback on this attempt. Let's begin!

minor premise: embezzler had special knowledge and access

sub-conclusion/major premise 1: embezzler is an accountant or actuary

major premise 2: an accountant would probably not make the mistake which revealed the embezzlement

main conclusion: it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary

Answer choice (C) states that there are 8 accountants and 2 actuaries

This is where things got dicey. Many people felt that the premise that "an accountant would probably not make the mistake" affected the probability that answer choice (C) was hinting at. However,there seem to be two major assumptions made to jump from the premise that "an accountant probably would not make the mistake" to the conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." First, the assumption that, because an accountant probably would not make the mistake, that therefore an actuary probably would make the mistake. Second, and this is a huge unstated assumption, the person who made the mistake is the person who committed the crime.

For example, even if we accept that an actuary has a greater likelihood of making the mistake that led to the discovery of the crime, is it not possible that an actuary could make the mistake but not have committed the crime? Therefore, the likelihood of committing the mistake and the likelihood of committing the crime are separate and distinct from each other. Conflating the two is a major assumption of the argument and a major reason for confusion on answer choice (C).

If we separate the assumption that the person who committed the mistake is the person that committed the crime from the conclusion that an actuary likely committed the crime we can use simple probability in looking at answer choice (C). Granted, this requires us to assume that of all accountant and actuary employees at XYZ Corporation, each person had an equal chance of either committing or not committing the crime. However, this lets us avoid introducing confusion of who was more likely to have committed the crime versus who was more likely to have made the mistake that led to the discover of the crime. Then the answer choice weakens the argument by stating that we would have to concede it seems there is greater probability that an accountant was the person who committed the crime.

That solves it for me.

However, I would really appreciate insight on how this answer choice does not both (1) directly contradict the conclusion and (2) avoids the assumptions that provide the support from premise to conclusion.

Regarding (1), C in English becomes It is likely that an accountant is the embezzler; this is in direct contradiction to the stated conclusion in the stimulus that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler." Maybe it depends on the definition of "likely?" In other sources, I see it means, possible to be true, but I also see at as being used as probable (that is, in probability we could not say that it is probable if there was actually only a 20% chance, as is the case of actuaries being the culprit in answer choice (C)).

We accept the premises and conclusion as true, as we must for weaken questions. Now if I told you that there is an 80% probability of an accountant being the embezzler, how could you seriously hold on to the truth of your conclusion that "it is likely an actuary is the embezzler?" Unless likely is meant as "could be true?"

Regarding (2), the support provided by the major premise that an accountant would probably not make the mistake ties into the conclusion by (a) assuming the person who commits the mistake also committed the crime and (b) that the actuary is more likely to commit the mistake. Answer choice (C) doesn't go after any of these. It instead focuses on the probability of the person who committed the crime, which seems just attacks the conclusion directly and changes it's outcome.

In other words, looking at the unstated assumption which conflates those who made the mistake with those who committed the crime, the main conclusion really just states a probability that has no relation to the rest of the argument except via extreme assumptions. Then answer choice C directly changes this probability.

After further parsing this, I would actually say the major conclusion does not follow from the premises and that the argument has made the flaw of confusing likelihood of committing the crime with likelihood of making the mistake. The detective spent all his time discussing the likelihood of the mistake but then expressed his conclusion as one of likelihood of committing the crime (which we know nothing about). C introduces information about the likelihood of the occupation for those who could have committed the crime. But this entirely shifts the detective's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks!

"the author assumes one reason when others could be plausible"

Can you tell me the name of this flaw? Thanks in advance!

I started taking the course in January and am now two PTs in. The first was on Monday, a 153 which was 6 points higher than my diagnostic, giving me a much needed confidence boost. However, my LG score was -10, definitely a black spot. Yesterday, however, I scored an abysmal 150 mainly because I scored a -15 (!) on the LG section. The worst is that when I watch the video explanations I can immediately tell why I messed up: my diagramming. I simply did not illustrate the rules well, which was disheartening since once I knew how to diagram I can get almost every question right obviously.

I don't know what to do right now. Do I stop my PTing until I have a firm grasp on LG? If so, how exactly do I go about improving? Should I still take my PT next week? My self esteem and confidence have sunk. My goal is to break the 160 barrier by test day, a score that I hope is within my reach. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

So I just received my results and ended up with a 163. My gpa is a 3.1 and I've been out of school for about 2 years. Worked for a year right after graduating and then stopped working to study for my LSAT. If I apply now, is there any shot of me getting into Fordham, Brooklyn, Yeshiva, St. Johns or even Iowa (ranked high but lsat and gpa are not as competitive), or should I retake the LSAT again? This was my second time taking the LSAT. the first time i canceled my score cause my nerves on test day interfered with my ability to take the test.

Ok, there has to be a better (more merciful) way for LSAC to release the scores. This is what I mean:

1) It takes more than three weeks to receive your score. Seriously? I know it's a paper-based exam, but come on!

2) Inconsistency. Release dates vary from year to year. It looks like we can expect scores to be released 1-3 business days before the official release date, but there've been cases when scores have been released on the official release date. How helpful is that when you reload your email/LSAC account every 5 minutes?

3) More inconsistency. Score notifications are released in batches. So that means if you hear your friend has received their score already, you can expect to receive yours on the same day (?). There is no inherent order to the release of scores, so go figure if it's going to hit you first thing in the morning or right as you were about to drift into another blissfully clueless LSAT-score-less night.

Anyway. Just some random thoughts as I'm waiting for LSAC to show some mercy. Anyone else want to share their anxieties, fears, hopes as we approach the big moment? I'm pretty sure I will have to retake, but I'm hoping for a score that won't depress me too much.

As I was reviewing my old notes, I've noticed that I wrote the definition of "few are" as some are/SOME ARE NOT but "few not" as most are/some are not.

Shouldn't "few are" mean some are / MOST ARE NOT?

I can't believe I'm still confused about this concept..wow. English.

Do all method of reasoning questions contain flawed arguments? Or are there some valid arguments out there? I'm getting confused whether I'm suppose to look for the flaw or just how the argument functions as a whole or even BOTH. I'm not sure what kind of mindset to have for attacking method of reasoning questions.

Hi 7sagers! I've sent out a few study buddy requests but am not having much luck. Is there anyone in Europe (for time zone purposes) that would like to set up some skype study dates? I'm taking the June 2016 LSAT and scoring around around the 160 range in prep tests. Let me know if anyone is interested!

In the existential quantifiers lessons, JY explains how to negate statements with the universal quantifier "all." The conclusion was that "some are not" was the negation and that the new set contained 0-99 items, whereas the original "all" represented 100 items.

In the comments section there was some confusion about why the "some are not" statement included 0 items in the new set and some contributors suggested the statement encompassed only 1-100 items.

After diagramming the all statement and its negation, I think I see where some (myself included) may have become confused. The important distinction is that the new set of 0 to 99 items is comprised of items with the same property mentioned in the all statement. My reasoning is below and I welcome any input on its accuracy. Thanks!

Example: All cats (C) are pretentious (P)

For simplicity, let us assume that there are only four cats in the world. The total number of cats which are pretentious and not pretentious must add up to 4.

P | /P

4 | 0 <-- every cat is P; the all statement we negate

---- <-- the binary cut

3 | 1 <-- min. condition to contradict our all statement

2 | 2

1 | 3

0 | 4 <-- often thought of as negation of all; "No cats are P"

In the above table we see that in the 5 possible groupings based on our 4 cats, one represents the all statement and the other 4 cases together represent the negation of that all statement. The set which represents 0 through 3 inclusive (comparable to 0 - 99) is the set of pretentious cats. I believe this is where many became confused and thought the set of 0-99 was made up of unpretentious (that is /P) cats. However, above we see that our unpretentious set always contains at least 1 cat and therefore follows our definition of some (it is comprised of one, possibly all cats, but not 0).

For the purpose of ruminating on my mistakes after reviewing few recent (post 65) PTs before February LSAT this Sunday,

I would like to share my thoughts on some noticeable tendencies in newer reading comprehension questions.

(For the record, I was usually scoring -3~-5 on reading comprehension sections during 40s~lower 60s PT,

and dear God I am scoring -7~-11 in newer PTs.)

1. There is more wiggle room for choices of words in answer choices.

Particularly among those newer suggestion/inference questions,

i found that answer choices that might have been easily regarded as wrong or overstretching inferences

getting to become an answer choice after the process of elimination.

In addition, some answer choices in non-inference questions are sometimes themselves written in a twisted way,

forcing me to take another step to see them as valid answer choices.

2. For reference questions that ask the purpose or meaning of certain parts in a paragraph,

answer choices are starting to make INTRA-passage inferences.

Previously on eariler LSATs, i guess it was safe or generally correct to focus your choices of answer on a specific paragraph for reference questions. However on recent questions there have been few instances where the answer choices were inferences made outside a specific paragraph but made within specific passage, connecting ideas from other paragraphs in a passage.

As a non-native English speaker i have felt that these changes in a more pronounced way, but I have to admit that I may have been wrong since I do not have a firm grasp on every nuance of the language. And some recent passages like Dodo extinction and mirror reflection have been brutal on me regardless of shifts in questions.

Any feedback is welcomed!

Hey guys after watching Nicole Hopkins' webinar on RC Methods and Jimmy Quicksilver's webinar on RC Question Types and Tips I thought it would be helpful to start sharing our notes/annotations for each passage because each of us reads a different way and we all see different things. I want to be clear that I’m no expert by any means and this is just the way I personally annotate that is a combination of Nicole Hopkins’s “Toolbox” method and JY’s Memory Method. Also note that I’m doing RC a slightly similar way to Pacifico’s Fool Proof method in that I’m doing the passage 2x one after the other and then once again the following day. While time consuming this definitely is allowing me to read more efficiently for structure and see the similarities in each passage which I know will help me in the long run.

I hope this helps you guys and I look forward to seeing what you guys see in each passage!

Notation Breakdown:

Who: Important Nouns

• Box it along with the quantifier

What: Term or phrase that’s defined or has relevant information afterwards

• Box with a tail

When: Date or time

• Circle it

Where: In what context

• Put brackets around it

Pivots: Switching between viewpoints

• Marked with >

• Also may help if you distinguish which opinions each are

Questions: Questions someone raised that could be answered in the passage

• Mark with a Q or a ? In the margins

Paragraph 1:

Box with tail “many political economists” until the end of that sentence

• Let’s you know the exact position the political economists are taking

• Immediately when this happens you should be expecting a flip “many people think X… but those people are wrong”

Put a pivot after the first sentence

• Let’s us know that we’re about to introduce another position or at least provide evidence against the political economists position

Box with tail “Human indicators … these economists”:

• This is letting you know an alternative position so we have GNP vs. Human Indicators

Put a bracket until the rest of the paragraph with HI in the margins

• Let’s you know some examples of human indicators should you be asked about them

What is the role of paragraph 1:

Introduces the 2 positions:

• Political Economists: The best indicator of economic health is the GNP

• Author: Human Indicators not GNP is the best indicator of economic health

Where are we going from here:

• We are probably going to talk about either why the GNP is worse than human indicators or give other specific reasons why Human Indicators are a better indicator of a nation’s economic health

Paragraph 2:

Box with tail “The Economists claim that… indicators”:

• Let’s you know that we’re talking about the political economists again so you can keep your view points clear

• Provides reason why political economists think their position is right

Pivot: Switching back to the Author’s argument

• This gives us the author’s first defense against the political economist’s last point

• Also put a 1 in the margin so you can be able to quickly find the reasons why if asked “each of the following is an argument in favor of HI except”

Bracket and put EX in the margins for lines 28-32:

• Gives support for the author’s last point that improvements in GNP don’t necessarily translate to improvements in human indicators

Box “In addition because GNP is an averaged figure it often presents a distorted picture of the wealth of a nation”:

• This is the author’s second point against the PE view

• Put a 2 in the margin so you can quickly find the author’s second point

Bracket lines 35-39 and put Ex in the margins

• Provides more evidence for the author’s point

Box the last sentence of the second paragraph

• Gives the author’s final reason against the PE viewpoint (Measuring a nation’s economic health only by total wealth frequency obscures a lack of distribution of wealth across the society as a whole

• Put a 3 in the margin

What is the role of paragraph 2:

Introduces the author’s 3 main points

• Improvements in GNP do not necessarily improve human indicators

• Because GNP is an averaged figure it presents a distorted picture of the wealth of a nation

• Measuring a nation’s economic health only by total wealth frequently obscures a lack of distribution of wealth across the society as a whole

Where are we going from here:

• We can either see a rebuttal and then the author’s final response or we can see the implications moving forward based on the author’s position listed in paragraph 2

Paragraph 3:

Box such imbalances: Referential phrasing to the author’s 3rd point

Box/Underline the last sentence (53-58):

• Gives us the author’s position for moving forward based on the evidence that he provided

• Could be helpful if we received a question like “Based on the passage which of the following could be properly inferred” and had an answer choice saying that the author believes that some countries will switch to human indicators as their primary measure of health moving forward.

What is the role of paragraph 3:

• Provides the author’s final thoughts and gives his outlook for the future

What is the overall structure of the passage:

• P1: Provides the 2 main positions

• P2: Provides the author’s rebuttals to why his position is right

• P3: Implications moving forward

Question Analysis:

1) “Which one of the following titles most accurately expresses the main point of the passage”

Very similar to MP question

What we’re looking for:

• We want something that provides the 2 viewpoints (GNP and Human Indicators) and that Human indicators should be preferred between the two

A) Wrong: There is nothing in the passage that talks about the shifting meaning in per capita GNP, the passage was focused more on human indicators. Also because it says “historical perspective” you need to think back if there were any historical data or examples that GNP gave in the passage.

Why one would accidentally choose this: If you misinterpreted this to mean that instead of wanting to choose human indicators over GNP that in actuality we were trying to shift the meaning of GNP to human indicators. In this case there were some examples but even then the answer choice is a stretch. In this case don’t let your brain deceive you, when the answer choice doesn’t mention human indicators and the author’s position was for human indicators then this answer choice should probably be wrong.

B) Wrong: This is factually inaccurate, the passage is actually attacking the measurement of Per capita GNP not defending it. Also the majority of the passage was the authors position not him mostly reporting an economists position. This one just doesn’t sound right at all.

Why one would accidentally choose this: You could accidentally choose this if you read it as an attack against Per Capita GNP because in a way the author is attacking the practice of using GNP instead of human indicators. However, his main point is that human indicators should be used over GNP not that GNP shouldn’t be used. This was just one of the ways they used to support his position.

C) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for, it states that we should prefer human indicators over GNP which is exactly what the author’s main point was.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this: You might accidentally not choose this because you were looking for an answer choice that included both GNP and human indicators in the answer choice, however in RC rarely do you get a slam dunk answer choice, so don’t be afraid to go with the correct answer choice, even if it doesn’t just jump out right at you.

D) Wrong: This misses the point, the passage doesn’t talk about “total wealth vs. distribution of wealth” it talks about human indicators vs. GNP. Don’t fall for this trap because it just used phrases that you remember seeing in the passage but really were not the main point.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you’re panicking on time and you’re just looking for anything you remember, most people will remember seeing both of those phrases and by the time you’ve gotten to answer choice D you’ve already sunk some time into the question. Don’t worry, feel confident in your ability and use your time smartly, if you’ve already invested 40 seconds into it take another 10 to make sure you answer it right.

E) This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE because it makes you think that this is exactly what you’re looking for. However, this is totally wrong. This makes you think that the answer choice is saying you should use Human Indicators instead of GNP for calculating a nation’s economic health. In actuality this is saying that you have a new measure of calculating GNP which we’re not trying to do.

Why you would accidentally choose this: This is a bunch of tricks blown into one, the testmakers have a very attractive answer choice that plays with your mind, it’s the last answer choice so you’ve sunk a bunch of time into it and it’s strong that any of the other answer choices. You need to make sure that you don’t fall for the trap, take a few seconds and really think about what the answer choice is saying, not what you want it to say.

2) The term “welfare” is used in the first paragraph to refer to which of the following?

Fill in the blank question

On one of the webinars I believe it was Jimmy Quicksilver gave a really good way to do these questions and turn them into a fill in the blank question, just mark out the term so that you can’t see it and then you read the sentence without the word in there, then you fill in the blank and choose the synonym which best matches the word you chose.

GNP…. A figure reached by dividing the total value of goods produced yearly in a nation by its population and taken to be a measure of the _______ of the nation’s residents. But there are many factors affecting resident’s ________ that are not captured by per capita GNP.

What we’re looking for:

• We want to fill in the blank to have something about overall quality of life so that’s what we’re looking for and with these eliminating should be extremely easy as long as we did our process correctly

A) Correct: This matches out anticipated answer choice almost verbatim choose it and move on.

B) Wrong: We’re concerned about the quality of life not the services provided.

C) Wrong: Not concerned about the material wealth we’re concerned about the overall quality of life for the citiziens.

D) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE. This is stated later in the passage and you don’t need to worry about that the question is asking solely about the first paragraph and in those sentences we’re wanting an answer choice that says the overall quality of life.

E) Wrong: This is very similar to “D” because this also is stated later in the passage, but the question is asking solely about the first paragraph and in those sentences we’re wanting an answer choice that says the overall quality of life.

3) The passage provides specific information about each of the following EXCEPT:

This is as cookie cutter as it gets, find a line/paragraph that shows that each answer choice was talked about and choose the one that isn’t.

A) Wrong: Per capita GNP is talked about in lines (4-6)

B) Wrong: This is talked about all throughout the passage that PE believe that GNP is the best measure of a nation’s economic health. But for a specific reference lines (1-3) provide evidence of it.

C) Wrong: The author talks about this in paragraph 2 as a reason why human indicators should be preferred because a nation can have low per capita GNP and actually be healthier than a high per capita GNP due to the human indicators

D) Wrong: The author goes into immense detail on this throughout paragraph 2 on why human indicators provide not only a different picture but a better picture than GNP

E) Correct: Nowhere in the passage is this talked about. Don’t believe that just because this is answer choice E that you can’t pick it, you just need to make sure that this is actually right and you’re not falling for a trap by the test makers.

4) Which of the following scenarios, if true, would most clearly be a counterexample to the views expressed in the last paragraph of the passage?

Weaken Question: We are looking for a “counter-example” for the last paragraph so essentially we are wanting to weaken the author’s argument

What we’re looking for: We want a case where we can increase the health of the economy that is measured in human indicators in some other fashion

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: We’re looking for an answer choice that is going to improve health by human indicators standards, however, that improvement is caused by GDP not human indicators. This has the two entities reversed and isn’t what we want.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you flipped the two entities around then you would end up with this answer but you have to remember that we’re trying to weaken the author’s argument so we want a case where we can increase the health of the economy that is measured in human indicators in some other fashion

B) Correct: This is what we’re looking for. This weakens the argument because our author’s point is that we should focus on increasing human indicators because if human indicators are the best measure of our country’s health. However, in this scenario if we focus on increasing GDP we actually increase human indicators and in doing so we provide an example that directly weakens the author’s argument, since he claimed that improving GDP wouldn’t improve human indicators.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this: If you didn’t understand what we were looking for then you could run into some trouble because a lot of the other answer choices sound similar and could trip you up. You just need to remember what the author is saying and then remember that we’re trying to weaken his argument.

C) Wrong: This is similar to “A” the only difference is that it brings a huge amount of change. We’re looking for an answer choice that is going to improve health by human indicators standards, however, that improvement is caused by GDP not human indicators. This has the two entities reversed and isn’t what we want.

Why you would choose this: If you flipped the two entities around then you would end up with this answer but you have to remember that we’re trying to weaken the author’s argument so we want a case where we can increase the health of the economy that is measured in human indicators in some other fashion

D) This is similar to “A” and “C” the only difference is that this fails to bring about any change. We’re looking for an answer choice that is going to improve health by human indicators standards, however, that improvement is caused by GDP not human indicators. This has the two entities reversed and isn’t what we want.

Why you would choose this: If you flipped the two entities around then you would end up with this answer but you have to remember that we’re trying to weaken the author’s argument so we want a case where we can increase the health of the economy that is measured in human indicators in some other fashion

E) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE. This would actually strengthen the author’s argument because it plays into exactly what we’ve said, also note that if you know that this strengthens then you can use it as a check for “B” to make sure that it’s right. In this it would provide more evidence that GDP can’t cause an increase in human indicators which would strengthen the author’s argument but we’re trying to weaken it.

Why you would choose this: If you misinterpreted the question to be trying to strengthen the author’s argument then you would choose this. Also if you misread it to be weakening the PE’s argument then you would choose this. You have to read carefully and understand what the question is asking and you won’t be tripped up by this.

5) “The primary function of the last paragraph of the passage is to”

Passage structure question:

What we’re looking for:

• This is why when you annotate you should always read for structure. The role of the 3rd paragraph is to summarize the points made in the first 2 paragraphs and then discuss the implications of these points moving forward.

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: There is definitely no synthesis in the last paragraph. For this to be right the author would have to basically agree with the other position and move forward with a plan based on both of this new position. The author clearly is in no way wanting to settle he is digging in and saying that this is my position, I’m right, and here is what it means moving forward.

Why you might accidentally choose this: By seeing the word synthesis don’t immediately get flustered, use the words around it to try and determine its meaning. If you misinterpreted that to mean something else then you would have mistakedly chosen this answer choice

B) Wrong: The author definitely doesn’t expose anything in his position, and since his position is one of the two this answer choice is wrong. For this to be right the author would have to concede some of the political economists points and say okay I’m right on some things, you’re right on some things. It sounds exactly like “A” only if this were right it wouldn’t provide a solution moving forward.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you didn’t read the word BOTH in this answer choice you could mistakedly choose this because the author does take a few last minute jabs however the main function of this is to discuss the implications of his argument moving forward.

C) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE. It’s almost like the test makers were writing the correct answer and then ran out of ink. This just doesn’t give us enough to be able to choose this because not only does it summarize his argument it discusses what is happening moving forward and that’s the key factor that is missing in this answer choice.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you’re not careful and you rationalize that yeah the last paragraph does summarize the author’s main point. However you have to think, is that really what the role of the third paragraph is or is the summary like the sub-role of this paragraph where the main role is to discuss what is happening moving forward?

D) Wrong: The author doesn’t try to correct a weakness in the PE’s argument in this paragraph he simply summarizes his point and then discusses the implications moving forward

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you’re not reading carefully and you accidentally read the 2nd paragraph then this could potentially be right, or if you didn’t pick up that the major role of the last paragraph is to discuss what is happening moving forward

E) Correct: This is what we’re looking for it gives us the policy implications moving forward just like our anticipated answer choice.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this: If you’re not careful and you rationalize that the last paragraph does summarize the author’s main point and that was the main role of the last paragraph. Also if you fall for the trap of just because an answer choice is “E” that it’s wrong. Don’t do this, read carefully and think is the main role of the third paragraph is or is the summary like the sub-role of this paragraph where the main role is to discuss what is happening moving forward?

6) Based on the passage, the political economists discussed in the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

This is essentially a MBT question where the correct answer choice must be supported by the passage so you will have to find a specific line or paragraph where it supports or implies the answer.

What we’re looking for: This is difficult to assess because it could be so many different things but remember that we’re looking for something that the PE agree with not the author.

Answer Choices:

A) Correct: This is stated verbatim in lines (18-23) in the second paragraph. Therefore we can safely say that this would be correct because the passage definitely supports it to the point where it proves it

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this: If when you were reading you didn’t do anything to annotate this it would be very difficult to find so maybe you skipped this and found an attractive answer choice that was a trap and chose that. Invest time in the beginning so you can reap the rewards when you get to the questions.

B) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE. This is wanting you to bring in your personal opinions if you were in the position of the political economists. But nowhere in the passage does it say that human indicators are irrelevant to the welfare of the individuals, the political economist’s argument is simply that GNP does a better hob than human indicators

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you fell for the trap of going to far and put yourself in the position of the political economists. Don’t bring in outside information and if the passage doesn’t support it for this question type then it’s not correct.

C) Wrong: This is a TRAP ANSWER CHOICE because the PE don’t have this view the author does so you need to make sure you answer the question that is asked and read carefully.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you read the question thinking that you were searching for something that the author said and not the political economists then you would choose this answer choice. Read carefully and underline that part of the question if you have to so you don’t make that mistake.

D) Wrong: The passage doesn’t support this because it doesn’t say it anywhere so we simply don’t know if this is true or not and therefore we can’t choose it.

Why you would accidentally choose this: You would accidentally choose this if you were trying to strengthen the political economists argument because then it would weaken the response given by the author, however you can’t add anything to the passage when trying to answer questions so don’t fall for that trap

E) Wrong: Again like “D” we just don’t know how the PE’s feel about this. We would like to think that a nation would benefit by assessing it’s health by using as many factors as possible but there is nothing in the passage that lets us know that the PE’s believe that

7) In the passage, the author’s primary concern is to:

In this you need to think about okay why did the author write this, what is he wanting to do. Is he trying to persuade me of something, inform me about something, etc.

What we’re looking for: We want something that says that the author is trying to convince us to prefer using human indicators over GNP as a means for measuring a nation’s overall health

Answer Choices:

A) Wrong: This is a way to confuse you into going what does this even mean and waste a ton of your time trying to figure out what “delineate” means. The other thing is we know what directing domestic economic efforts, but does the passage talk about a new method or a new focus to direct economic efforts to like a new industry and source of clean energy, no. The passage was written to convince us to measure our economic health using human indicators rather than GNP.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you didn’t know what delineate meant or you mistakedly thought that this was saying that a new method of measuring domestic economic efforts instead of “directing domestic economic efforts” you would choose this. Read carefully and use the context clues to figure out what the sentence is saying. Don’t get lost in the weeds!

B) Correct: This is exactly what we’re looking for, this is the way the author is trying to strengthen his argument that human indicators should be preferred over GNP.

Why you would accidentally NOT choose this: The language here isn’t strong and if you didn’t pick up the referential phrasing that “one standard for measuring a nation’s welfare” was talking about GNP and how it has some weaknesses. Use your basic grammer lesson taught in the course. As Iroh in Avatar the Last Airbender said “Remember your basics, they are your greatest weapons”

C) Wrong: This misses the point on what the passage is saying, this is simply used as a reason of why human indicators should be preferred over GNP. Don’t mistake a premise for the conclusion:

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you remember seeing that in the passage verbatim and didn’t read for structure then you could totally fall into the trap of thinking that this was the correct answer choice but this falls back onto your basic labeling fundamentals. This is simply a premise that supports the author’s conclusion, which is his primary concern not this answer choice.

D) Wrong: This is very similar to “C”. This misses the point on what the passage is saying, this is simply used as a reason of why human indicators should be preferred over GNP. Don’t mistake a premise for the conclusion:

Why you would accidentally choose this: : If you remember seeing that in the passage verbatim and didn’t read for structure then you could totally fall into the trap of thinking that this was the correct answer choice but this falls back onto your basic labeling fundamentals. This is simply a premise that supports the author’s conclusion, which is his primary concern not this answer choice.

E) Wrong: This is completely factually incorrect and the opposite of what the author is saying. He is directly going against their argument and in doing so if you chose this answer choice you would be being hypocritical because it would destroy his argument completely.

Why you would accidentally choose this: If you accidentally read this as “political economists alone should NOT be responsible for economic policy decisions” then this would have more merit. This is exactly what the test makers want you to do because you’re feeling the time pressure. Know that you’re not going to fall for their traps because you’re going to see them a mile away.

"The editorial board of this law journal has written on many legal issues. Tom is on the editorial board, so he has written on many legal issues."

It sounds like a valid reasoning... Why is it flawed?

Thanks in advance!