#18
we know that Meyerson thinks that these "external considerations" related to purpose, policy, value are "part of the game"
what is the "game"? it's analogized to the "legal process"
keyword here is "may" in the last sentence - Meyerson rebuts that external considerations may be viewed as part of the rules of game, which implies that she views this as a matter of debate
my error in eliminating E is not catching the qualifier "may" and thinking that Meyerson sees external considerations as part of the rules of the game period
but may ≠ is - "may" simply suggests possibility whereas "is" indicates certainty
also it's fairly easy to find textual evidence for "a matter of debate" as long as we spot even the slightest bit of disagreement, which the entire passage is geared at illustrating
B - the word "depends" makes this AC unsupportable by the text.
nowhere in the passage gives us textual support for the claim that the more policies/values can be endorsed, the more integral these external considerations play in the legal process
D - if anything, this is CLS's position rather than Meyerson's.
we're told that CLS advocates argue that when applying rules, you must appeal to (and hence endorse) external considerations of purpose, policy, value
this is paraphrased in D: when you take into account external considerations in determining a legal solution, you are assuming that policies/values are desirable/endorsable
but Meyerson seems to disagree with this position, in fact, she might argue that just because you take into account external considerations doesn't mean you agree with the law or think that the law is legit
#20
B - we don't get "two opponents of a certain viewpoint", instead we get Meyerson on the one hand opposing CLS on the other
to revise B, we can either say "different arguments made by two opposing viewpoints are advanced" or "the different arguments made by a certain viewpoint and an opponent of that viewpoint are advanced"
reading this passage reminds me a lot of my LSAT prep so far. I've amassed a lot of data on questions missed and concepts to keep in mind of etc but I've yet to make those crucial connections in a big picture sense
Totally agree that it's so personalized. I've tried different strategies but still haven't found what works best for me. I've tried no notation at all and paraphrase each paragraph as I go, then do a quick scan of the passage and prephrase a MP before going into the questions. Then I switched to brief notation for each paragraph but similar to your experience, I don't refer to them as much as it's worth the time invested to jotting them down. So I've now settled on highlighting, specifically looking for viewpoints, shifts in narrative, qualifiers that indicate tone and degree like "ostensibly" or "suggest" along with active reading and reading for structure. But for content-specific questions, my memory fails me, so I'm just figuring out a more integrated, comprehensive approach!
Do you physically jot down notes as you read under timed conditions? Notes as in a few words for each paragraph that capture important content or structure or both. Is there an effective way to do this, if effective at all?
I've tried this in the past but I'm always short on time, but maybe my system of notation is just too unwieldly, so I switched to a highlighting system but then my memory fails me.
Any advice is appreciated!
thanks for the comments. I now realize that the argument doesn't commit a #/% flaw - just because the author talks about numbers and percentages doesn't mean that the argument necessarily commits the #/% flaw
I came up with scenarios to better point out C's error and jotting down the numbers helped me realize that a change in population really has no effect on the crime rate
1. population increased a lot
2. population increased a bit
3. population stays the same
4. population decreased a bit
5. population decreased a lot
in all these scenarios, the fact that the crime rate still went down (even if just a little) in the past 20 years still stands, so while C is descriptively accurate (author does overlook the 1st and 2nd possible scenarios, but s/he also overlooks all the other scenarios), C doesn't describe the flaw
@kkole44474 said:
@jenlines188 said:
@kkole44474 said:
@jenlines188 Wow, that super cool! Do you mostly draw them on paper or do you make them digitally? I definitely will be doing more leisure reading as well! When I first stated and JY mentioned that the LSAT will Likely take over your life for a while, I was like 'nahhh' but now it has...
a bit of both! but I like the immediacy of pen on paper and can't agree more haha LSAT prep has practically consumed my life though I try to workout every day and take a break here and there
Do you have a specific genre you like to make? I think it'd be great to have a forum on here where we showcase 7Sager's other skills such as: comic making, poetry, writing, photography, drawing, painting and many of the other hidden talents that 7Sagers have!
I do cartoons! I also like poetry and writing in general. and I think that’s a great idea!
sells well - too trendy
sells poorly - incompetent
--------
how well it sells -/- success
(instead of a conditional "→," I'm using a dash to represent the "may")
A - X
B - Y
--------
A -/- success
B -/- success
Gaps:
X -/- success, or too trendy -/- success
Y -/- success, or incompetence -/- success
the author concludes what doesn't qualify as success without giving us a definition of what success is and isn't
B - music that's too trendy indicates lack of success as an underground rock group
the group's incompetence also indicates lack of success
the new element in the conclusion is "success" and the dangling variables in the premises are "too trendy" and "incompetence." B fills in the gap by giving us "dangling premises → new element in conclusion"
A - fails to account for the middle ground. we're told that music that sells especially well or especially poorly is unsuccessful
but how about mediocre music, the kind that neither sells especially well nor especially poorly?
if mediocre music is successful, then the conclusion no longer holds since how well a record sells can in fact determine success
C - fails to account for the other half. tells us that "sells poorly -/- success" but doesn't tell us anything about whether "sells well - success" or "sells well -/- success"
also contradicts the premise. we're told that many underground musicians consider weak sales as indicative of success, but C says the opposite
D - states an implicit part of a premise. we're told that "sells poorly - incompetent" which is consistent with "sells poorly -/- incompetent," or as D puts it "sells poorly - competent"
it's totally possible for an underground rock group to be competent yet still sells poorly. this is completely consistent with and does nothing to the critic's argument.
we're still left wondering whether these groups are successful or not
E - refers to the wrong group. we're only given info on music that's "too trendy" or "incompetent," but the stimulus makes no mention of music that's "authentic/not too trendy" and groups that are "competent"
like C, this AC also contradicts the premise. we're told that the creation of authentically underground music is a mark of success, but E states the opposite
@kkole44474 said:
@jenlines188 Wow, that super cool! Do you mostly draw them on paper or do you make them digitally? I definitely will be doing more leisure reading as well! When I first stated and JY mentioned that the LSAT will Likely take over your life for a while, I was like 'nahhh' but now it has...
a bit of both! but I like the immediacy of pen on paper and can't agree more haha LSAT prep has practically consumed my life though I try to workout every day and take a break here and there
Interested if you’re still looking!
D's abstract word choice didn't click for me because I didn't clearly pinpoint the referential phrases and synonymous phrases
the "change" is referring to allowing species toward which we are indifferent to perish
"shouldn't allow a change to occur" simply means "shouldn't allow species toward which we are indifferent to perish to occur," which is synonymous with "should try to preserve the maximum number of species"
A - more or less restates the premise. we already know that we have an interest in preserving species that we do care about, and it's reasonable to say that among them there are certain plant and animal species
C - where did the "flourishing of present and future human populations" come from?
more importantly, saying that "we shouldn't allow the number of species to drop any further" isn't the same as saying "we should try to preserve the maximum number of species"
the conclusion is playing offense whereas C is more so playing defense
there are two ways to get hired for the new position:
(1) FQ and CW
(2) FQ + CW + MP
FQ = fully qualified
CW = currently working at Arvue
MP = most productive
there are two possible gaps:
we have to prove that either Krall is not the most productive out of the fully qualified but not currently working at Arvue candidates
or that Krall isn't currently working at Arvue in spite of being a fully qualified candidate
A - tells us that both Delacruz and Krall are full qualified candidates but aren't currently working at Arvue, but doesn't tell us who is most productive
leaves open the possibility that Krall could be the most productive out of Delacruz and all the other candidates, which means Arvue should hire Krall instead
B - leaves open the possibility that Krall is a qualified candidate currently working for Arvue, which means there is no reason why Arvue shouldn't hire Krall for the new position
C - if Krall is currently working for Arvue, then why shouldn't Arvue hire Krall for the new position? the fact that Delacruz is the most productive is a moot point
D - still doesn't prove who is the most productive. is it Krall? or is it Delacruz? if it's Krall, then Arvue should in fact hire Krall
E - puts us in the second category where both Delacruz and Krall aren't currently working at Arvue. the fact that Delacruz is the most productive justifies Arvue's decision to not hire Krall
C - nowhere in the stimulus says anything about constituents opposing the bill, let alone a lack of evidence of such an opposition, so the author can't possibly confuse something that doesn't even exist
E - we're not told if the public actually supports the bill, let alone proof of such a support
I think E would've been right had it say "treats a result that is merely consistent with public support for that bill as a result that proves that the public would support that bill"
#8
what I'm looking for in the AC: the author provides a translation of a proverb as an example that shows how regulation of peer-group relationships is a particularly frequent focus of proverb use in Mexican American communities
picked B then switched to A on BR
what's tempting about B: I liked the "provide an example" part because it matches my prephrase but I didn't like the "tone" part
what's ultimately wrong about B: the author didn't give us a translation of a proverb in order to show us an example of a proverb's tone
the tone is not the main focus, instead the focus is on peer-group relationships
what's unappealing about A: I thought the way the phrase "illustrate the relation" is worded is a bit vague
what's ultimately right about A: my interpretation of "illustrate" was too rigid - to "illustrate" something can simply mean to provide an example of something
is the translated proverb an example that sheds light on the relation between proverb use and peer-group relationships? yes, the proverb serves a regulatory purpose
P1: background info about proverbs - definition, origin
P2: more info about proverbs and one purpose they serve in Mexican American communities
P3: another purpose proverbs serve in these communities
Main point: proverbs play an important role in Mexican American communities and are used for many different purposes
Viewpoints: author (major), Mexican American parents (minor)
Tone: descriptive, informative, a bit persuasive
I’d like to make more comics and draw more in general! Also learning more about blender and maybe how to animate. also more leisurely reading!
P1: magnetic variations in ocean floor challenge idea that ocean floor is static (old belief; new evidence/discovery #1 challenges old belief - MP)
P2: magnetic variations shed light on ocean floor spreading theory (discovery #2 - support for MP)
P3: evidence in support of ocean floor spreading (support for MP)
Main point: the discoveries of magnetic variations and ocean floor spreading challenge the notion that the ocean floor is static
Viewpoints: author, scientists
Tone: descriptive, informative, persuasive
"remarkable correlation"
interested!
6+ pens and many, many trees
P1: "tradition" is a powerful legal concept but one that's rarely defined in laws in Alaska (context; problem presented)
P2: two court cases shed light on application of "tradition" (source of problem; negative implications)
P3: legal restrictions on hunting of sea otters (historical background)
P4: two court cases revised definition of "tradition"
Main point: two recent court cases shed light on the problem of not clearly defining "tradition" and the need to redefine "tradition" for consistent legal results
Viewpoints: author, FWS, 1986 court, 1991 court, Alaska Natives (Katelnikoff, Dickinson)
Tone: descriptive, informative, critical of FWS
"It defies common sense…"
C - just because scientists haven't been able to link specific genes to specific inclinations doesn't mean that at least some of our inclinations can't be genetic in origin
D - gives us counterexamples, or nonconforming cases to the causal conclusion
the psychologist concludes that genes cause some of our inclinations, as opposed to the environment
D comes in and gives us examples of identical twins whose genes don't necessarily cause their inclinations since they develop very different inclinations
Passage A
P1: ideal of objectivity (context)
P2: what ideal of objectivity entails (context elaborated)
P3: what objective historians should do (MP)
Main point: ideal of objectivity is important to historical scholarship and historians need to objectively interpret facts
Viewpoints: author, objective historians, relativist historians
Tone: descriptive, prescriptive (should)
Passage B
P1: requirements for objective historical scholarship (context)
P2: historical objectivity ≠ neutrality (support for MP)
P3: objective historical interpretation isn't just about being detached - it's about making a powerful argument (MP)
Main point: authentic historical objectivity is compatible with and in fact requires a commitment to an argument
Viewpoints: author
Tone: informative, persuasive
P1: Jewett's novels share similarities but more importantly differences with domestic novels (OPA; concession point; author challenges OPA)
P2: potential explanations as to why differences came about, one of which pulls the most weight according to author (author challenges OPA)
P3: high-culture aesthetic distinguishes Jewett's novels from domestic novels (author's explanation elaborated/MP)
Main point: contrary to recent criticism, Jewett's novels fundamentally differ from domestic novels in several ways, and there should be more focus on assessing such differences
Viewpoints: author, some critics, Jewett, domestic novelists
Tone: descriptive, persuasive, prescriptive
"This fundamental difference should be given more weight..." (line 51)
Cookie cutter: art for art's sake
#15
A - passage A is primarily concerned with examining dental caries and its relation to the development of agriculture
evidence (dental caries on prehistoric human teeth, line 3) of agricultural development (shift from hunter-gatherer diet to agricultural diet, line 5) in the archaeological record (archaeologically derived teeth, line 14)
passage B is also primarily about examining the evidence (skeletal remains in prehistoric Ban Chiang) of agricultural development
#16
B - agricultural foods = cultivated foods
we're told that the populations discussed in the last paragraph of passage A were nonagricultural, which means that the foods they ate weren't cultivated
for passage B, Ban Chiang populations did eat cultivated foods, specifically rice and yams
C - we're told that the populations in the last paragraph of passage A ate nuts and wild plants, but we don't know if their diet was primarily made up of carbs
as for passage B, we also don't know if Ban Chiang populations ate primarily carbs. all we know is that their diet was varied in the Late Groups, but that doesn't mean carbs made up the primary part of their diet
telling us that the Ban Chiang peoples had a hunter-gatherer-cultivator diet says nothing about the distribution of the diet
#18
what's the prevailing view of the relationship between dental caries and eating carbs in passage A? that the more carbs you eat, the more likely you'll end up with dental caries
what's a piece of evidence that supports this view? the support can be found in paragraph 2, specifically the research that shows that the Sioux who ate primarily meat had almost no caries while the Zuni who ate cultivated maize had caries
A - "highly processed foods" is mentioned in paragraph 3 instead. passage B doesn't mention "highly processed foods"
B - relatively low incidence of caries (almost no caries) among nonagricultural people (Sioux)
in paragraph 2 of passage B, we're told that research suggests that more reliance on agriculture leads to decline in dental health, as studies have shown that dental caries is rare in pre-agricultural populations
Passage A
P1: link between carb-rich diet and dental caries (hypo)
P2: research corroborates this link (support for hypo)
P3: anomalous cases to this link (cases that don't conform to hypo)
Main point: there's a link between agricultural, carb-rich diet and rate of dental caries, though nonagricultural diets can also experience high caries rates as well
Viewpoints: author
Tone: descriptive, informative, persuasive
Passage B
P1: observation made about archaeological remains in prehistoric Ban Chiang
P2: research sheds light on this observation
P3: Ban Chiang diet and corresponding expectation
P4: expectation doesn't match reality; one potential explanation shut down; another potential explanation presented
Main point: even though Ban Chiang peoples increasingly became more dependent on agriculture, the rate of caries formation didn't increase contrary to expectation due to varied diet
Viewpoints: author
Tone: descriptive, persuasive
@juliet7sage this is great thank you for sharing!