Do you flag and come back to hard questions at the end of each passage in RC, or do you come back to them after attempting all 25~27 questions in the section?
Similarly for LG, do you attempt all games before coming back to a flagged question?
please add me as well! email: gajiacc@.com
I understand what the flaw is after listening to the explanation, but I am still not 100% confident that I will recognize this type of flaw in the future because this entire problem rests on an idea that is contrary to our common sense and most of LSAT questions make us rely on our common senses...
I think it would be much more helpful if detailed explanations were provided for all answer choices, including the ones JY instinctively thinks are obviously bad or stupid. It doesn’t help us learn why something is wrong if we can’t understand why something is bad.
English is my second language and RC was my worst section for a very long time. I think it ultimately helped to just go through as many RC passages as possible to get used to the LSAT reading style. For especially difficult passages, I pause for 10 seconds to do a low resolution summary in my dominant language. I still frequently get author's attitude questions wrong because I have a hard time understanding the tone/attitude in English, but at the end of the day it helps to not rely on an overall "feeling" of the passage but rather find specific words that give clue to the author's opinion and mood. Hope this helps.
When I was reading this stimulus I felt like it was missing a link between doctors’ rudeness and negligence/carelessness lawsuits. Although it wasn’t an assumption question, it really helped to think of it such way. The missing link is that the rudeness and lack of compassion is being perceived as being careless and negligent to patients. Hope this helps.
The essayist makes two assertions: 1.) Only happiness is intrinsically valuable. 2.) Everything else is valuable only in terms that they contribute to happiness.
Some philosophers try to argue otherwise. They try to say that something besides happiness to be intrinsically valuable, for example the deservedness of happiness.
BUT, essayist refutes and says that deservedness of happiness is really determined by the amount of HAPPINESS itself a person bring to others.
Therefore, …
I’m gonna look for an answer choice that once again reiterates the main point of this stimulus, which is that only happiness is intrinsically valuable and everything else is valuable only in terms that they contribute to happiness.
C - The judgment that a person deserves to be happy (something that contributes to happiness) is itself to be understood in terms of happiness (happiness, which is in itself valuable).
Sorry if this made things more confusing for anyone
I hope dumb questions like this don’t appear in 2020 exams.
If we can't make any assumptions about the arthritis sufferers' beliefs, how can we make similar judgment about their imagination?
Besides the fact that C has a lower bar to pass than B, it's hard not to think that B is still a reasonable answer choice.
#help Did I understand this correctly?
Robbins is somewhere between scale of being able to dismiss art and being able to praise art. Therefore Robbins’ understanding of art is insufficient to pass judgment.
In conclusion, Robbins can’t pass judgment on Stuart’s art.
A is correct since in order pass judgment, Robbins must either be able to dismiss it, or praise it, or do both.
Personally this question was confusing for me due to the ambiguity of the word "consequences". Realizing that consequence can be bad or good helped me understand my mistake.
If anyone wants to check out Estabrook's work: http://danestabrook.com/