Discussions

LSAT

New post

98 posts in the last 30 days

Most Authoritarian Rulers passage:

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. This is part one which will just include my annotations for the passage (Most Authoritarian Rulers) and I'll post one that has analysis of the questions immediately afterwards.

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

Time Breakdown of reading/annotating before going to the questions

• 4:05

Paragraph 1:

I boxed with tail “Most authoritarian rulers” who undertook democratic reforms (The quantifier “most” was important because an answer choice could have said “all authoritarian rulers and would have been out of the scope of the stimulus”)

Underlined “they” for referential phrasing

I put a pivot after the “but” to show that annotate that the real reason why the author believes that many authoritarian rulers undertake democratic reform is because they see that they can’t hold onto their power unless they do so

Boxed changes and mobilizations because I anticipated that was where the passage was going from here

What is the function of this paragraph:

This paragraph is introducing the author’s main point: “Due to the various changes and mobilizations in civil society it makes it impossible for authoritarian rulers to hold onto their power indefinitely so they undertake democratic reform.”

Where do we think the passage is heading from here?

Well the first paragraph mentions “changes and mobilizations but we don’t exactly know what exactly they’re referring to so that might be an indicator of where we’re heading from here

Paragraph 2:

Immediately Box “Three types of changes” because this lets you know that more than likely the author is going to talk about what the 3 changes are.

• Also note that these “Changes” are the changes and mobilizations in civil society that we annotated earlier

Box with a tail “values and norms in the society alter over time” until the end of that sentence. I wanted to box this with a tail because I wanted to get the first type of change along with showing how it changed civil society.

• Also I put a 1 in the margin so that I could quickly see where the values were when I needed to refer back to the passage

In the next sentence I put a bracket along with “Ex” in the margins so that if it asked about that specific example I could find it

• Also I circled 1970’s and 1980’s so if they had other dates as an answer choice I could quickly eliminate it

I underlined the last sentence in the paragraph because it shows another way that the changing of values and norms in society impact an authoritarian rulers’ power

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the first type of changes in civil society that make it impossible for rulers to hold onto their power

• A change in norms and values

How does the change in norms and values contribute?

• Reduces people’s tolerance and stimulates concentration of power thus stimulating their demands for freedom (11-13)

• As people place more value on political freedom and civil liberties they become more inclined to speak out, protest, and organize for democracy, frequently beginning with the denunciation of human rights abuses (17-22)

Do you have an example of either of these points:

• Latin America in the 1970’s, 1980’s (13-17)

Where are we going from here:

We talked about the first value that contributes to society’s no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule so my anticipation would be that the next paragraph would talk about the second change

Paragraph 3:

Box alignment of economic interests in society can shift: This is the second change the author gives

Box scholar: Let’s us know who is saying this

Box with tail and brackets from privileged people to long-term interests:

• We want to box privileged people so we know who we’re talking about and you want to make sure that you read with and without the internal context of who the privileged people were

• All of this is important information because it gives us a way how the economic interests shifting could impact the regime

Box “such a large-scale shift”: This is just so you can remember what type of shift we’re talking about the shifting of changing norms and values

Bracketed and put “Ex” in the margin for the Philippines example, for the exact same reason we did the Latin America example, if we’re asked about it we can easily find it

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the second change that can contribute to a society no longer condoning the continuation of authoritarian rule

• Economic interests in a society can shift

How do the shifting of economic interests in a society contribute to the author’s main point

• A turning point is created when privileged people in society come to the conclusion that the authoritarian regime is dispensable and that its continuation might damage their long-term interests.

• (26-31)

Is there an example of this:

• Transition to democracy in the Philippines

Paragraph 4:

Box “expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal”

• This is showing the 3rd and final change that contributes to the author’s main point

Bracket the next 2 sentences and put Ex in the margins

• This gives you visually a clearer point to see two examples of this change

Box this profound development: Referential phrasing to the example above

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph gives us the 3rd change that contributes to the shifting from authoritarian society to a democracy

• Expanding resources, autonomy, and self-confidence of various segments of society and of newly formed organizations both formal and informal

Are there any examples of this:

• Students marching in the streets demanding change

• Workers paralyze key industries

• Lawyers refuse to cooperate any longer

• Alternative sources of information pierce and shatter the veil of secrecy

Paragraph 5:

Box “authoritarian rule tends in the long run to generate all 3 types of change

• This helps us understand that we have to deal with all of these problems not just 1 or 2

Box with tail “Ironically” until the end of that sentence: Could be asked about the author’s attitude towards this situation and this gives a glimpse into their tone

Bracket the last sentence of the passage

• Gives lasting thoughts to what the author believes (If you don’t convert to a democratic society then you won’t be able to retain any of your power)

What is the purpose of this paragraph:

This paragraph brings together all of the ideas and hints at the authors tone throughout the passage along with his thoughts moving forward regarding this issue

Overall Analysis:

This passage is pretty straight forward it introduces the issue (Authoritarian rulers are unable hold on to their power indefinitely unless the switch to a democratic society), then uses the following 3 paragraphs to go into detail about each change that contributes to this issue, then the author brings everything together and leaves you with his lasting thought.

0

Without a doubt, reading for structure is one of the simplest and yet most powerful strategies you can employ when reading a passage. However, does this always apply?

Typically, a passage will be broken down into several paragraphs composed of several sentences. With most passages usually being four paragraphs. This is easy to keep track of and read for structure. What do we do when a passage has many paragraphs composed of one to two sentences? This seems to be an exception to the rule. I have continued to read for structure while going through the passage, I just don't try to memorize where things are, since I find that to be unduly difficult.

2

So I have a question on Problem Set questions, particularly the last two ones. Usually I am on a role and get most to all of the questions right in the sample single questions before the problem sets. Those sample single questions seem to be also numbered at the harder ranges like 10-25 ish. However when it comes ot the problem sets, especially the ones with 5 stars, they seem to be exponentially harder than any of the sample questions before the sets. For an example: in the Necessary Assumption section, I was pretty much able to get most of the questions right in the single questions. Not only that, the questions I got wrong consisted of a minor misreading of the passsage or answer choice. And don't forget that these questions are also in the 10-25 range which I believed would have helped me with the 5 star questions. It turns out that I was wrong. The difficulty in figuring out the correct answer choices even after significant amount of times has been evident. A question 13 from a 5 star question in a problem set seem to be exponentially harder than a question 13 from any of the sample single questions before the problem sets. I have been wondering, where does getting the 5 star questions right rougly place you in the LSAT score ranges compared to 4 star or 3 star?

0

These are one type of question I often struggle a bit with, so I figured I would write out a bunch of common answer choice labels and define them in my own words, and was hoping others could weigh in on my definitions and possibly offer corrections, or general advice for these questions. Otherwise hopefully these definitions will help you clarify when examining the answer choices.

I find the most common labels are:

Analogy

Generalization

Example

Evidence

Premise

Sub conclusion

Principle

Support (offered as)

Premise

Main Conclusion

Destinction

Some of these are obvious, but others seem to be worth definition.

Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Example: Finding an extra point on the lsat is like finding a needle in a haystack. An analogy actually functions quite similarly to a principle - while a principle makes a broad claim and applies it to a specific case, and analogy takes one specific case and applies it to another.

Generalization - A claim, drawn from a piece of evidence about a broader population. When survey results are used to make statements about the general population, that is a generalization.

Example: I asked 50 people along the beach if they liked icecream,and they all said yes. [I guess everyone on the beach likes icecream.]

Evidence: When were talking about evidence were talking about something objective. Evidence is a fact or something observable that, in and of itself, says nothing about what should or ought to be. Sometimes you might think evidence implies something, for example, the claim [gun violence has risen 25% every year for the past 6 years] might indicate gun violence is a serious problem, but that's you applying the meaning.

Premise: a premise is a claim which is subjective. [Gun violence is a problem] is a subjective statement when it's used to support the conclusion: Thus, /we should invest more money in our police force/ Premises are directed towards and support conclusions.

Sub Conlusion: These get pretty easy to identify eventually. I just look at rather evidence is directed at it. A subconlusion is a joint which connects premises and often packages them together into something easier and more compact that can then be tied into the main conclusion. If your unsure which conclusion, just look at which conclusion is directing into the other. Example: Everyone on the beach likes icecream. They also like frenzies and popsicles. [This shows that everyone on the beach likes lots of cold snacks.] Thus, we should open an icecream store on the beach.

If we cut the icecream store part from this argument, the statement about cold snacks would be the MC. But because it offers support for a final statement, that statement becomes the main conclusion.

Support: Something in the argument that makes something else stronger. This is really broad, and can have a ton of applications. Essentially, everything in an argument exempt the main conclusion is a support for something else. Generalizations, analogies, examples, principals, and premises are all supporting portions of an argument. When you encounter the word support in an answer choice, you need to focus on the direction of the support. Is it actually supporting the thing the answer claims it is? Dont worry about support indicating a specific type of statement. Dont be like, "This isnt really a support, it's a principal". Everything except the MC and possibly redundant statements or context is support of some kind. Focus on the direction.

Principle: is ‘a fundamental idea or general rule that is used as a basis for a particular theory or system of belief’. On role of statement questiond, principles are often offered without further support in an argument. They are a claim about the way things should be, perhaps based on the basis that their truth is self evident. The can also be argued for, or be a conclusion. Example: We should not hold punish John for getting someone badly injured while speeding down the highway, because he was doing so to save three people who were badly injured who he was driving to the hospital. Doing so saved their lives and saved their families from massive grief, and of course, [One should always act in a way which maxamixes net happiness].

Many of these catagorise subsume or overlap with others. When approaching the answer choices, I find it reduces stress to remind myself of this. A statement could be a sub-conlusion, a principal, and support. I made this list mostly for myself but figured I'd post on here. Hopefully others found it helpful, if anyone has any criticisms / input please let me know.

2

Hi guys,

Here is the gist: I have a scientific background and tend to do well on science passages. I suck at art and humanities passages.

It seems like I can go -0 pretty easily on 1 and 2 star passages, -1 on 3 star passages, and anything between -2 to -4 on 4 and 5 star passages.

Obviously I have difficulty with the hard and hardest passages. I find that I read the stimulus in about 3:30 minutes and usually that is enough to understand 1 to 3 star passages really well to get most of the questions right. Spend the same amount of time on 4 and 5 star passages though, and I get a lot of questions wrong timed. I know that it is because a) I spin my wheels on difficult questions and b) I did not fully understand the passage.

I know what I have to do in order to address a), but for b) it seems to be a case of... I need to do a drill set/intensive on hard reading comp passages. I went ahead and printed all the 4 to 5 star passages from PT 7 to 35. Going to do them timed and blind review. And then put them away/archive them and redo them after some time has passed. What do you think?

0

Hi everyone,

Now this was a weird parallel flaw question because I feel like there are so many different answer explanations for the answer choices on this question all over the web, and I am not sure which ones are the most reliable. Thus, I felt maybe listing what I thought here would help clarify stuff, and I want to know what people here think (is my reasoning here look correct or not correct?)

What I thought was the flaw: transferring a non-transferrable trait from X to a reproduction of X

A-- right because it matches the flaw (crossed out A during the actual timed test because the trait isn't the same in wording like we see in the stimulus)

B-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

C-- wrong because this is a conditional relationship, not an argument

D-- wrong because we want to see some trait transfer from Jo to Layne, and we don't see that

E-- wrong because being similar is not the same as imitating/reproducing (chose E during my PT because I didn't realize this)

Any feedback would be very much appreciated!

thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-1-question-21/

0

Hi all I find I have some difficulty on numbers related LR questions, there was a MBT question on pt 89 dealing with average numbers of students in night classes and an easier question on pt 80.1.2 (flaw question) where it's a numerator denominator trap.

I remember someone saying "you have to know 2 of 3 things to make a valid inference, you have to know at least 2/3 of the numerator, denominator, or the %." Am I remembering this correctly?

Also does anyone have any tips from figuring these numbers questions out easily? Thanks!

0

Hi,

I chose E, but the answer was A.

Here's supposedly why the answer is A: given that the question is asking for what would "most support the author's claim [on lines 24-27] about the relationship between muralism and the Mexican Revolution", people are treating this question as if the "claim about the relationship" is the statement on 26-27: that the muralists reflected important innovations in the art world (thus leading to the correct answer = answer choice A.

Here's why I chose E: I thought that a relationship had to be a connection between the Mexican Revolution and muralism, so I was focusing on the phrase that muralism was the result of changes that the Mexican Revolution represented (line 24-26). This led me to choose E, since this looked like the only answer choice that could possibly support a claim regarding the relationship between Muralism and Mexican Revolution.

In other words, I didn't agree with A's reasoning because the claim on 26-27 only talks about muralism and doesn't connect it with Mexican Revolution.

Can anybody explain how answer choice A was correct? How were we supposed to know that this claim regarding this relationship was that described on lines 26-27 rather than that described on 24-26?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-3-passage-1-questions/

0

#help

#help!

Hi,

This was a very weird author's-attitude question. Even when I look at the correct line (line 24), I still don't fully understand how the answer here is B. (I thought the answer was A because of how the author described Bentham's reform as revolutionary and then goes on to describe the flaws behind the reform). Why is B right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-2-passage-4-questions/

0

Hi,

So Im averaging -8 on the LR section. There's a pattern to my incorrect answers though. They are all sufficient assumptions, principle, or parallel reasoning questions. They all require me to map out the argument and understand whats missing or to mirror the same map to something else.

The problem is that I don't understand how to map out reasoning. I can do simple ones but on my own, all my diagrams are confusing. HELP!

0

Hi,

I took the May one on May 19th. I am scheduled to take the June LSAT Flex.

On my ProcturU site, my account shows that I am scheduled to take June LSAT Flex but also had taken a June LSAT Flex on May 19th. I had to restart my computer after 1.5 hours of chatting with several technicians/representatives.

LSAC only says that it's out of their hands and that I should take it up with Proctor U.

But, ProctorU hasn't replied to my email over a week and their chat/call lines are all not available after many many waits.

Has anyone else had this experience? If yes, were you able to resolve it?

0

Hey everyone, quick shortcut for these kinds of LG questions. First, look at each of the answer choices and see if any of them must be true. The ones that aren't are instantly wrong. Think about it--you're testing for logical equivalence. For two statements to be logically equivalent, they must be true in all circumstances. If either one of the statements isn't true all of the time, they can't constitute a logically valid premise, and they can't be used to imply the validity of other statements.

Hope this helps!

0

Hi,

So I am just really lost on why the right answer here was B instead of A. Can anyone explain why B is right and A is wrong?

When looking at the question, I focused primarily on the last two sentences of passage A (kinda treated those last two sentences as a LR question).

As a result, A looked like it weakened the argument passage A gives in these last two sentences because it created a reason for the phenomena (of rich people usually paying about the same under progressive tax as they would under flat tax) to be surprising (and thus less "unsurprising").

In addition, I just didn't see how B weakens the idea that this phenomena was "unsurprising", and as a result, I thought B was incorrect.

#HELP

Thanks!

0

Hi everyone! Does anyone have tips on the "word in context" questions for RC? I keep consistently struggling with these questions despite the seemingly straight forward manner of the qs. Any tips would be appreciated!

0

Hi,

I understand why B here is right, but I have trouble understanding why D is completely wrong. After all, couldn't "some" footprints include the footprints that Dr. Tyson is looking at, and couldn't missing a feature of the original footprint lead to a huge change in how the footprint is interpreted?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

0

Hi,

this was a weird LR question that I thought somebody might have some insight on. I used Process of Elimination to find that E was the only possible right answer, but I was not completely sure how E was the right answer when it stated that the Student's criteria was "inconsistent" with "the principle the historian advanced".

For something to be inconsistent with something else, they must contradict each other. The principle the Historian brings up is that "Alexander the Great should not be judged by appeal to current notions of justice". However, the student only stated that, in order to tell if Alexander the Great raised contemporary standards, one would need to "invoke standards other than those of his own culture". This criteria does not HAVE to contradict the principle the Historian brings up because "standards other than those of his own culture" might or might not include "current notions of justice".

Can anybody explain how E is right here?

Any #help would be appreciated!

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?