Please recommend some approach for the Resolve questions.

Rev_Lefe

Hi,
I have been struggling a lot with recent resolve questions (those from PT 50s~). Even after trying tips I learned from the CC and from other sources, this type of question still gives me a hard time.

I would like to beg you for a favor: I want to know how do you usually approach the Resolve questions, specifically:
i) what's your expectation (the key information you look for) for this type of question?
ii) do you have any steps for this type of questions?
iii) if you are going to teach me this q type, what would you tell me?

Thank you very much.
Leon

CSieck3507

The best way for me personally was thinking about it like this; A but B because...so, you’re given A but then you’re given B. Well how can you reconcile them or how can they both happen? That’s one way. Also, really think to yourself if the AC really resolves. Does it resolve the “paradox” or does it just add more confusion? I used to have a hard time with RRE until I took this approach and it helped me a lot.

FindingSage

JY had actually done an episode on the podcast about RRE questions that really helped me. https://7sage.com/13-resolve-reconcile-explain-rre-questions-are-weakening-questions-in-disguise/

canihazJD

Identify the assumption that causes the paradox to be... paradoxical.

The reason for the tension between the statements in an RRE stimulus is some naively made assumption. The correct answer will address this assumption. If you have to let the ACs feed you, just work backward. Does this AC point out an assumption that was made?

@FindingSage said:
JY had actually done an episode on the podcast about RRE questions that really helped me. https://7sage.com/13-resolve-reconcile-explain-rre-questions-are-weakening-questions-in-disguise/

Was going to post exactly this. The following episode about converting from Weaken to RRE is good too.

Basically you can take an RRE stimulus, add a conclusion indicator, and negate the last statement (changing it into an argument), and it becomes a weaken question that you can use the same correct answer choice to solve.

Example used from J07 ( @FindingSage correct me if I screw this up):

As an RRE question:

French Academy is the major sponsor of painting and sculpture, no private funding.
French Academy discourages innovation in the arts,
causing sculpture to reflect little innovation
Yet painting showed a lot of innovation.

RRE answer: Painting was way cheaper than sculpture. So more unsponsored paintings were produced than unsponsored sculpture.

Reasoning: If paintings did not require sponsorship, they were not bound by the preferences of the Academy, allowing for more innovation.

As a weaken question:

French Academy is the major sponsor of painting and sculpture, no private funding.
French Academy discourages innovation in the arts
causing sculpture to reflect little innovation
Therefore: painting should also have reflected the same lack of innovation.

Weaken answer: Painting was way cheaper than sculpture. So more unsponsored paintings were produced than unsponsored sculpture.

Reasoning: If you can paint without sponsorship, innovation should not have been affected by the ideals of the Academy, while the more expensive medium of sculpture (requiring sponsorship) would have been.

Not that you'd go through all that under time, but being able to just mentally convert between the two is a good indicator of conceptual understanding (IMO primarily being able to identify the assumption made and recognizing what answer choice addresses it), which will allow you to knock those questions out on the fly.

Rev_Lefe

Thank you, CSieck3507, FindingSage, and canihazJD! I've tried a tactic similar to the "A but B because" method, which did not work for me well though. It helped me POE swiftly but left me struggling between two contenders.
I will incorporate those new tips into my drills today! I think I would love it! Again, thank you all very much!

LSATSurvivor

Have you tried Ellen Cassidy's way to do this type of question? Her method is like JY's SA method of building a bridge between two ideas. Her method is Phenomenon 1 ---- Resolution ----- Phenomenon 2. So, the resolution is like a bridge between the two phenomena.

This_is_Hard

Without having read Ellen Cassidy's method, I agree with what LSAT survivor said. The Answer Choice should build a bridge between the two apparent conflicting ideas. After doing many questions I noticed that many wrong ACs only solved one idea. While the right AC will always resolve both the ideas (builds a bridge).