Reasoning behind LR Questions

Comments

• 2 Likes

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  March 2020 27829 karma

  I think PT 7.3.21 is an RC main point question about Native American land use policy, so one of us is in the wrong place! Can't speak to that specifically then, but generally, you should give JY's reasoning great deference. That's not to say that there are never other explanations or correct routes to the correct AC, just that you should be extremely skeptical that you're in position to overrule JY. I do feel qualified to make those deviations, but even I am very cautious in these spots. When it happens, I stop everything and very carefully reevaluate.

  Until you're at a very advanced level of ability, there will almost certainly be more harm than good that comes from this practice. Even if your method of reasoning isn't wrong, it may still be missing the point, non-applicable to future questions, missing a critical nuance which is the whole value of studying the question, inefficient, or haphazard. There's a lot of other things that could be going on.

  So that's my response generally. Specifically to this question, you're doing the right thing by asking! We're almost to the 10,000 total LSAT questions mark, and not even JY is going to explain every last one of them in their perfect entirety. So maybe you're onto something. Confirm the question number and I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it.
• Lily2020 Member

  March 2020 102 karma

  Thank you so much for this! It does make sense what you are saying

  I went back to check the question and it's

  "PrepTest June 2007 - Section 3 - Question 21"

  I hope you find it... Idk if that video link helps/directs you to the question

  https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-3-question-21/
• Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  March 2020 27829 karma

  I think your reasoning here is very similar to JY’s. As I understood it, he is seeing the AC exploit the gap between grain and meat.

  The only thing I don’t like about the reasoning you quote is the “less morally unacceptable” phrasing. The conclusion just says “morally unacceptable,” which is creating a binary rather than a sliding scale. On this binary model, a thing either is or isn’t morally unacceptable, and there is no “more-or-less.” It won’t cost you this particular point, but failing to make the distinction will cost you many points and much frustration over your LSAT career. The writers love this subtle little distinction and use it frequently and effectively. Other than that, I think you’re well aligned with JY’s thinking. You could say it a lot of different ways. For example, I could express the same thing with greater focus on the flaw like this:

  This is a great example of sneaky subset issue. In the premises, the argument uses the noun phrase “animals raised on grain.” The argument draws its conclusion about simply “meat.” These have a lot of overlap but are not equivalent. AC B directs us to the part of the conclusion set which falls outside of the premise set.

  Same reasoning; different expression. Different reasoning requires close scrutiny; different expression of the same reasoning is encouraged. Being able to articulate it in your own way reflects much better understanding. Just be careful with the detailing!

  It may be a while before you’re comfortable recognizing the distinction between different reasoning and different expression, but as I said before, you’re doing the right thing by following up and confirming. Keep doing what you’re doing!