Hey guys! A comparative passage question-
I recently watched J.Y.'s explanation for PT 75, and he stated that he tried and really liked the strategy of reading passage A, trying to eliminate answer choices based on his reading of only passage A, then going back to passage B and finally finish answering the questions.
I have never done this before, and was wondering if anyone else had/ if they suggest doing this.
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/
When you encounter the word "contributes" on the LSAT, do you take this to be a "causation" word? For example, if I tell you that "high cholesterol contributes to heart disease". Would you say that high cholesterol is a cause of heart disease? I always have assumed so, but PT 47, S3, Q19 threw me off by equating "contributes" (which I thought implies causation) to "is associated with" (which I thought implies mere correlation).
The word "is associated with" was on the stimulus, and the word "contributes" was in the correct answer (C). I did not choose this answer because I thought that I would be making an assumption from correlation to causation by picking it.
Hey guys! Just wanted to ask what you think the best resources for Logical Reasoning are out there. I would especially like to work on parallel reasoning/ flaw, and logic heavy questions (they tend to slow me down when I diagram them). I have read the LR Bible, seen the 7Sage videos, and done PTs. Thank you!
This might be a really obvious question, but: if a given LSAT has a less rigorous section, is it usually compensated by a very difficult section of another type? I find that when games are easy, reading comp is a lot harder.
Anybody else selling a 180 watch?
Anybody selling one still?
Thank you guys for all the recommendations!
If I can't find a 180 one (I think the reason I would like it is that it counts up- and for some reason I'm more comfortable with that but either way it's something I can adjust to) I will look into your recs.
Kelsienagele: I was thinking of that one as well. How's it working for you?
Hey everybody! 180 Watch is backordering until Oct, and I need a watch for Sept 27.
1. Are you selling your 180 watch? Please let me know melina.debona@gmail.com ASAP. I'm willing to pay full price.
2. Also, opinions? https://lsatmax.com/watch/
The fact that they drew the land animals on the wall (C) does not imply that they ate the land animals (A). Maybe they drew them because they venerated them or whatever reason.
So, just because land animals are on the wall doesn't weaken the author's argument that since these people ate sea animals and since the sea animals were not drawn on the wall, these people didn't draw their food.
What you must explicitly argue for to weaken the author's argument is that they ate something else other than sea animals (like A states and D implies), or that you can't see the sea animals that they indeed drew (B), or that they were different people who ate other animals, not only sea food (E).
This is a really silly/ historically incorrect way to think about this, but it may help:
You are a tourist seeing the paintings and all you see a cow drawn on there. Next to the cow painting there's a sign that says "These people (people X) drew their food". Then, out of nowhere an archeologist comes up to you and says: "See? Look at the cow, I'm right! These people didn't draw their food since they ate fish!!" and so you argue against him: 1. You know from your history class that they also ate cows so drawing a cow means drawing their food (A), Their whale paintings disappeared after it rained on them but they did draw the sea food they ate (B), They had really good ways of keeping the cow meat intact which implies they ate them on the long trips so it makes sense they drew the cow (D), and the way the cow is drawn makes it obvious that it was drawn by the first people X before they made the trips (but the key is that the answer choice states that they ate cows).
But if you say "there's a cow on the wall, so they did draw their food!", you're not weaken ing his argument at all. You haven't said anything about the fact that they ingested the cow they drew.
Thank you both, I think I equated "evidence" with "it's proven that"