Methods of Reasoning Questions (Intermediate) with Nate

Hey, regular, how's going? How's it going? It's good to see you in all my classes. like this. Can you hear me?

Hey, regular, you're in here twice.

How are you? Good. How's your studying going? good to have you in my class again.

Yeah. How's everything going? Are you in the States?

No, I'm in the U.S. Just permanently in the U.S.

Yes. Good. Or I may not be necessarily but welcome. Well, let's switch off the iPhone and come, give me a minute.

Yeah.

Welcome back.

Yeah, I get that.

Cool.

Yeah, yeah.

Also, yeah, that'd be good too.

Right, right. Yeah, it's always good. You can get some flexibility in your job. It's just gonna be challenging or tricky to find a job with that.

You currently do a flat tutoring and anything else, or just I should I should with the bar as well with test max and that's your one L students first year law students and also do application consulting for test max as well.

So I'm doing quite a few things.

Send a message to LSAT max support. I think we do do that. And I think if you want to stick with us that you definitely should.

I send him a message and tell him um yeah tell him I tell him I sent you know.

I want to put him on a tutoring. Yeah, absolutely. Definitely send send us a message. and tell them um yeah tell them I tell them I said sure tell them I'd love to work with them yeah Blue Hendricks join so I'll take this topic off light yeah sure so uh what we're going to get started hi everyone my name is Nate this is a live class session is methods of reasoning hello to everyone who's joined us so far we're going to fill Blue Hendricks nice to see you all as always just keep yourself on mute when someone else is talking but unmute anytime you want ask a lot of questions participate as much as you can it's really good for you it's really good for me um that being said we can go ahead get started anyone have any questions first before we get started and if not um I'll go ahead and show my screen to this is going to be intermediate method the reason and we're just going to dive straight into it that one

So, there's two things come on in blue, thanks for joining us, thank you to OSEI Leadership joined us as well.

Random question from Blue, go ahead. And the difficulty levels based on the scores are getting. The difficulty levels on, you mean in live classes?

Oh yeah, that's just, do you have familiarity with this already or not? Are you a beginner and do this, are you intermediate in doing this, are you advanced in doing this, you feel a lot more closer to like an expert, not maybe an expert story, but like finalizing your strategies.

Beginning means you don't really have a strategy on this, you need to start from kind of the beginning, intermediate means you have a strategy, now you want to get better at it and advanced means, you've got strategy, you've got better at it, now you want to get the final points and get even better at it.

I wouldn't let the difficulty level of the live classes dissuade you or encourage you to attend any particular live class.

It's definitely a rough guide, it's rougher than anything else. I always tailor my sessions to the students I have because it doesn't make sense for me to teach an advanced class and then no one's understanding anything I'm saying so I'll go back and explain the basic concept.

So I wouldn't worry too much about that. Just the biggest thing I more time. on the basic concepts and beginning ones, and then intermediate ones, I kind of gloss over them a bit more, but I always go back to people need more on those.

So, yeah. So, let's take a look at these. Yeah, thanks for the question, Blue. Absolutely. So, what does methods of reasoning do?

The idea here is it's just how the question is asking, how did they reach their conclusion? And so, what does that mean?

That means, imagine if I say if you are A, you're B, and if you are B, then you're C, so I conclude if you are A, then you're C, and how did I reach my conclusion?

used two if then statements as two facts, I added them together with the transverse. and came up with a conclusion that synthesized them both.

And that's what we want to do. We just want to go and ask ourselves, what did they do here?

Just what did they do? What method did they use? How did they reach their conclusion? This is not really the hard part of these questions.

I think the hardest part of these questions is, same in the areas in reasoning questions is, step one is this.

How did they reach their conclusion? Step two is, it's like abstract or like understand the abstract answer choices. This is the hardest part of these questions.

The answer choices are written in a really abstract way. So we have to like translate. Or we have to un-abstract.

Or as I like to call it, like read the answer choices in the comments. text of the passage or the question.

These are the things we have to do in order to get these questions right. it's tricky. They'll do this thing where it's like, well, the author brings up a counterpoint to his own, his or her own conclusion that dissuades the speaker from this not enough.

I don't know what that means. It's really, really tricky, the language they use the answer choices. is the harder part.

Speaking of what they did is not as hard, but understanding the answer choice is the harder part. And so we need to spend more time on this.

And what you want to do is, my favorite or my best advice on this is to read the answer choices in the context of the question.

So when they say something like, challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed of the suggested relationship between blah, blah, going one by one.

Okay, this starts with challenge. they challenge anything? And you say, okay, I think they challenged this. And they said, was there anything that was this?

like, ask yourselves, answer choice A, I'm going to say they did blank by blank. Web length, web length, web length, see if you can fill in the information from the package that would fit all of this one by one.

And if something is missing, there's nothing here. It's the wrong answer. Is that clear? I know this is pretty abstract.

know this is pretty abstract. But is that making a little bit of sense? Okay, we'll see them, yes, and we'll just, we'll start, we'll start with some questions.

What was the last part about fitting it in? Yeah, it's, it's just like adding context to the abstract answer choice, making them less abstract, making them more specific, making them, giving them specific, adding details to the answer choices.

It's tricky. It'll make more sense as we get to some questions. Phil says it makes sense. We'll load it.

Jiri or jiri you just joined us? Thanks for joining. Let's take a look. As always ask any questions you want This is your sessions.

We're trying to make this work for everyone. Okay, we're gonna go to methods of reasoning when to start towards the end.

want to start on number 40. We're just gonna break this down while by one. Let's go ahead and read this question.

Don't worry about the answer choices yet. We're always gonna anticipate first. Let's read the question first. Can we break it down?

Can we come up with an anticipation? What's the whole shape of this argument first? Go ahead and read this one.

And we'll discuss in a second. What is this even saying at all? You So what is this one even saying at all does anyone have a sense of what this argument seems to be and in fact is it valid is it true if this is a full origin.

Thank you. For our conclusion, what's our argument even saying at all here? Yeah, stress and acne are correlated good.

And our final conclusion is what? Yeah, and it's however, it is likely that the common wisdom has mistaken and effect for a cause.

What does that mean? What does that conclusion even mean at all here? Yeah, and what do they mean by has mistaken and effect for a cause?

What effect and what cause are they talking about here? No,

Exactly right Phil, good, the common wisdom at the top is widely believed that eating chocolate can cause acne. Our conclusion is, if switching the effects of the cause, in other words you're saying eating chocolate doesn't cause acne.

Acne causes eating chocolate perhaps, or it's hormone changes that is led to actual acne and... I didn't complicate it yet.

I don't want to fill in too much else. I think they're going to say it's stress is causing hormone changes that causes acne and stress causes people to eat chocolate.

Yeah. So, that's our conclusion that it's, they've misinterpreted the data, it's something else. Okay, this is where it gets tricky.

Now we're getting that. We put into words a tiny bit, this is the trickiest part. we put into words a tiny, tiny bit, how they're doing this?

What are they saying? How did they proceed in the argument? What did they do? What steps do they take?

If we can, good, if we can't, it's OK. We'll go to the answer choices and check it out. This is where it gets hard.

It's turning what they're doing into one of these answer choices and vice versa. Akiva is glancing at A, the only one we can see on the screen.

It's counter evidence that calls into question the accuracy of the evidence in support of the position being challenged. It just gets really complicated.

So we just want to have as much prepared as we can and understanding of the argument we can before we have to answer choices.

We have, Ragu is saying, conclusion is doubtful. Effective acting chopping up could be some factors. Eating and chopping evidence is different.

Yeah, good. absolutely, absolutely. It seems to me that they've brought up like a common belief. then they've said no and then they've said here is why it's no.

That's the best sort of sense I get this argument. Let's go to the answer choices and see if we can find one that matches and this is the hard part.

Let's translate the answer. I'm gonna go through number one for us. I'm gonna go through eight together then I want to sort of set everyone else off on their own to read through the rest and when you see a good answer choice you like put it in their chat and put a reason why.

Always tell me why you think the answer is right. You always push yourself to come up with why. So looking at A, this is what we want us to do this women.

Plug me and play we're gonna add context. It cites counter evidence. Okay stopping there. Where is my counter evidence?

So does the argument cite counter evidence? We have several recent scientific studies. Okay so that might be counter evidence.

Good. That calls into question the accuracy of the evidence advanced. Okay the accuracy of the evidence advanced. Has there been other evidence?

Okay, yeah, eating large amounts of chocolate is invariably followed by an outbreak of that smooth condition. Okay, so that's the evidence advance in support of position being challenged.

I mean, yeah, so far that's kind of it, but the first one might not be a position being challenged.

There's just why they believe, I don't know if I would call that a position. I'm going to hold this and see if we can find a better one.

I'm not convinced that there's a position being challenged as much as a widely held belief. So let's hold this and let's see if we can find a better one.

If not, that could be the right answer. If any of them do a better job of describing this. Also, are they keen users to join us?

Thanks for coming. Deeply see one that matches what's actually happening. Just give me one second. going to get some water.

Put your answer in the chat when you see it. Thank you for your patience. If anyone see a good one that does describe what's happening in this, it's very tricky.

And if no one really sees a week, we can go tomorrow. about one, too. It'll be good. What that why is a out regular?

It's actually one more thing going wrong with a that I didn't really point out, but It's sites counter evidence so far so good that calls into questioning accuracy so far so good It actually doesn't call into question accuracy of the evidence doesn't it calls in the question accuracy of the conclusion based on the evidence I don't think they're challenging that eating large amounts of chocolate is True or false connected with outbreak of acne.

So there's two things going wrong with a Let's see if we can find a better one. Let's see if we can find a better one Although eight does seem close enough.

I do want to hold on to it If anyone see a good one, go and put it in the chat whenever you have it.

You Let's go down to B. additional evidence. Okay. I just have to pause every time I'm reading and keep and try to add in context.

That's what we do in these methods of reading in question. It provides additional evidence. Okay. What will be my additional evidence here?

We do have several recent scientific studies provided. Okay. So far said good. That points to alternative interpretation of the evidence.

Okay. Does that point to alternative interpretation of the evidence otherwise? And so we do have other evidence offered that eating a large amount of chocolate is invariably followed by an outbreak of the skin condition.

Okay. So far so good. Does that does our new evidence to alternative interpretation interpretation? The other interpretation would be that we've mistaken caused an effect so far so good in support of the position being challenged.

Sure. At the top if A and B. We're both saying the top part of the position being challenged. We can maybe call it a position being challenged.

Let's hold on to B. B also looks OK. Let's look at C. invokes the superior authority of science. OK, I don't know if it's in superior authority of science, but it does use several recent scientific studies instead of anecdotal evidence.

So we'll hold this. We keep going. a common opinion, it is widely believed. Sure, that's common opinion. In order to dismiss out of hand, this is out of hand, it doesn't sound like that's what they're doing.

Let's keep going. The relevance of the evidence. Again, I don't think they're saying the evidence is not relevant. Just that the conclusion is wrong.

Based on everyday experience, this one's going too far. Although it's similar, it's going too far, I think A and B are still better.

think B is still better. it demonstrates that the position being challenged is inconsistent with certain well established facts. I don't think it's inconsistent.

I think they're saying they're. is an effect in cause relationship, they've confused the cause and effect, not D. provides a counter example, okay, so far so good.

Well, a counter example, this counter evidence maybe. I'm not liking this so far. We're going to keep reading it to show that contrary to the assumption on which the commonly held position rests, causes do not always precede their effects.

This is not, this is again going too far, going back to A and B, A starts with its sights, counter evidence, B starts with it provides additional evidence, so these match so far that calls into question accuracy, the evidence for that point, so I'll turn it into interpretation of the evidence, B is better breakdown of what's happening if an alternative interpretation of the evidence and not calling it the question the accuracy of the evidence.

Is this clear, these are tricky, that the trickiest part is reading, reading the answer choices in the context of the passage.

And you're still in the of blanks. Is that clear everyone? Let's try another one. try another one. Go ahead and read this one to yourself.

See if you can get a sense of what's even happening in this passage at all first. What is Judy doing to John here?

To me, it sounds like she's saying buts, meaning she's coming up with sort of some sort of counter to what John is saying.

It's not that he's, John is saying, let's start with John I guess, in 80% of car accidents, the driver's at fault, the driver at fault is within five miles at home, so if you use one factor sport, the conclusion which is people evidently drive less safely in your home than they do on long trips, Judy is saying, yes, it's true that the driver at fault was within five miles of home, but it doesn't mean your conclusion is correct, it means something else, it's just based on probability of frequency, you just drive so much in your house.

that you're inevitably going to more likely get into afterness near your house. So, it looks like she's using John's same evidence to come to a different conclusion.

So let's hold that and take a look at advanced choice of one by one. Do any of these say that?

These advanced choices are a little bit less abstract than that previous one. We still need a film of things, but take a look whenever you can and put an answer in the chat whenever you have a good one and put a reason why you believe that an answer is right.

You You Have an answer to the chat go ahead and put it reason why but a reason why you think you're into the right

But a reason why, how did you find that, a couple more actions coming in, but a reason why you believe if your answer to us is correct.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Oh, yeah, interesting, I didn't even notice that really interesting point. I want to bring in another point. This is the hardest thing in my opinion on the LSAT.

It's when is the LSAT, what we really have to ask ourselves is. I'm on the LSAT entirely. is, when they refer back to someone or something, are they referring to the same or different concept?

This is one of the trickiest parts of the whole LSAT. John says something interesting here. In 8% of car accidents, the driver at fault was within five miles of home.

So people evidently drive less safely near home. What does it mean by near home? What does John mean by near home?

This is one of the trickiest parts of the LSAT. later on, John says long trips. What does this mean?

The LSAT does a very tricky thing where they don't tell us, but we kind of have to understand what they think is a difference between when there's two words referring to the same.

saying, are those two words synonyms, or are those two words new concepts? If John says, smart people do X, Y, but wise people do ABC, are these synonyms smart and wise, are they new concepts, separate concepts?

And this is one of the, this is like the final box in my opinion on the LSAT. There's no right, the LSAT has their own personal right answer, but I can't always see it, and I just have to hold on to it.

I just have to hold on to it. So we always want to figure out, are they actually correctly referring to the same concept and using synonyms, or are they bringing in a new concept?

Here, can anyone think about what John means when John says, is near home and long trips? does John mean?

your home, right? That's what John is saying. Yeah, that's what John is saying. John is using a second word as a synonym to the near home.

They're saying near home is less than five miles. What do they mean by the long trips then?

Over five miles, right? Greater than five miles. So these are two different, they've what they've done is they've pulled us near home, people are getting into within five miles of their home.

And John said, I'm going to call that near home. I'm going to call outside of that long trips. So these are being used as synonyms for this concept.

These are not being used as new concepts being introduced. Whenever we see a whole new new concept being introduced, we always have to be wary of that.

Here, this is not a new concept. And let's double check D. It calls into question John's assumption that whenever people drive more than five miles from home, they're going on a long trip.

This is break. I didn't even notice this. I don't always even notice all the new concepts versus the synonyms for it.

I don't think Judy's doing this first of all, but second of all, John doesn't say that. John is just defining long trip as over five miles and not assuming that if you're ever more than five miles from home, you're on a long trip.

That's just the John definition of long trip. So this doesn't even factor into Judy's argument. Judy's saying something different, which is tricky, but it is going to be A here.

It's just that John's evidence points to a different conclusion and not John's conclusion, which is you drive safer on long trips than you do in the around.

It's just that actually it's really funny, but Let's even take one more step out. The entire L side is asking, is this a fully airtight argument?

If you talked about something here and here in your premises or your evidence, does it perfectly match your conclusion?

you talk about one and two in your conclusion? Let's take a look at John's argument. Let's take look at Judy's argument one by one to see if they're perfectly lined up or not.

John said 80% of car accidents within five miles of home, so that means people drive less safe near home.

We do talk about near home. We do talk about safety. But do we talk about less safe? don't. We don't know how often.

There's like a new concept here. The idea of less safe. We talk about driving safety near the home, but there's something brand new here.

I don't know if it's less or more safe. You drive away from home, because I don't have the statistics on away from home.

I do know 80% of accidents near home, which also means 20% of accidents are far from home. Well, if people spend 80% of time driving near home and 20% of the time driving far from home, there means they're driving the exact same way.

So Judy instead said, actually, I'm gonna give you new fact, people do drive 80% of the time near home and they get 80% of accidents there.

That matches up perfectly. And they get 20% of accidents away from home, which they spend 20% of their time driving there.

So Judy has a perfect match up up top to bottom. She's addressed all the facts. John is brought in a new concept.

Let's save the way from home. And that's what we always want to do. want to check if they're an exact match up of the top or the bottom.

Yeah, really do your job, really do your job. Let's try another one. are tricky. These are right tricky. So let's be patient with ourselves here.

Can we give a sense first of what's happening in this question at all? then we'll do the whole answer choices.

Actually, let me hide the answer choices. That's second. Okay. What is Jennifer saying? What is Peter saying? And what are these people even saying at all?

always start there. is even happening at all?

Great, perfect. And what does Peter say about it and what does Jennifer say about it? Peter seems to be saying.

Our conclusion is farmers should water crops only just enough to ensure there's no substantial threat. From the dying of thirst from a lack of water to either the growth of the yield of crops.

Why? Because insects prefer to feed on leaves of abundantly watered plants, so we shouldn't water them too much. Here's another, and this happens almost every time, looking at this idea of good concept versus the same concept, Peter says, the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants, leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants, so mild drought-stressed plants, and then in Peter's conclusion, they say, water just enough to not die.

This is referring to the same concept. These two words are synonyms, mildly drought-stressed, and water just enough to not die.

This happens on almost every question I to figure out. They're referring to the same concept or not, and it can be tricky.

You have to read with an open mind. The majority of times it's clear they're referring to the same concept, and some of the hardest questions it's not.

clear, but just always notice it. As long as these are the same concepts, we're good to go. Jennifer then says, refers to that same concept, again, a mildly drought-stressed plant.

She says, indeed, meaning I agree, a mildly drought-stressed plant. So referring again to this minimally watered plant will divert a small amount of its resources for normal growth to the development of pesticides toxins, but abundantly water plants will not.

So back to her top there, indeed, back to the top of the argument. So indeed, you're right, we should do this.

We should create this environment of mildly drought-stressed plants. So let's hold on to all of that. Let's go to the answer choice and see if it's the entity that talks about what Jennifer does to Peter's arguments and see if we find one that matches.

Put it in the chat when you think you have a good one, and put it in a reason why.

Forcing yourself to ask yourself or create a reason why really helps you understand what you're doing right and wrong, because it's

You can put into words why something is correct. You're good and if you can't, it might not be correct.

You You Okay, okay, okay, we got one answer in to keep going you see always put a reason why

You Yeah, let's go to these one by one. Let's take a look. Jennifer's comment is related to Peter's argument, which in the following ways.

We always have to add in context for each one of these one by one. Let's take them all one by one.

fill in the blanks. A, it offers information that supports each of the claims that Peter makes in his argument.

It offers information so far so good. Jennifer does say it'll divert resources to pesticide, pest to cytotoxins. That supports each of the claims Peter makes.

Each of the claims, Peter makes the claims that leaves are tougher when there are less water and insects prefer to feed on less water plants or more water plants.

And so he's making Peter's making two claims and Jennifer doesn't talk about either one of those. So she offers information that supports Peter's conclusion but not each of his claims.

We'll hold this and see if we can find a bigger one. B, we have to be very strict about filling in the blanks.

B, it supports Peter's argument by supplying a premise without which Peter's conclusion cannot properly be drawn. We'll take it a little bit other this time.

for additional information, yes, supplying a premise, yes, that insecticidal toxins. Does Peter's conclusion fail without the insecticidal toxins? No, Peter says gives a different reason for his conclusion.

So it's not that it fails, it's just that she's giving better reason. So I don't like this one. We'll hold A and take a look at C.

supports Peter's argument so far, so good. She says, indeed, she agrees by offering an explanation of all of Peter's premises.

Again, not all. A and C are actually doing the same thing wrong here. D, it supports one of Peter's premises, although it undermines Peter's conclusion.

No, it agrees with Peter's conclusion. E, it supports the conclusion of Peter's argument by offering independent grams of exclusion, absolutely.

She says, not only because of the toughness of the leaves, but also because of the insecticidal toxins. Any questions?

on this. Do you see I was to fill in the blank one by one on this. Also hello to Marissa who joined us.

Thanks for joining. We're doing methods of reasoning. Let's take a look at the next one. Can we give a quick breakdown of what's even happening at all in this argument?

Let's not look at answers versus yet. What's even happening at all in this argument first?

Okay, and then what about Craig? I believe they are. Great. That's it. That's it. I think we can get an even complete breakdown here.

Rifka is saying, we do not need to stop and ask for conclusion is we don't need to stop. Why?

Because we're not lost. comes back and says, Craig's argument is putting the conclusion on the bottom. We do need to stop.

And the fact that we are lost is the reason why we need to stop. So a reason why goes is a premise.

And the conclusion is what is being supported by that reason why. So the conclusion is, yes, we need to stop.

And the reason why we need to stop is because we are lost. So to me, Craig has not only

disagreed with the premise, the premise is not the same, but then reach a different conclusion based on that premise.

basically just disagree with the premises and the conclusion. So, let's see if we can find one that matches that.

Actually, I don't think I'm to make this this much better. Okay. Let me know if can read that okay.

not, let me know. put the answer into the chat when you see it and put a reason why. But a reason why.

figure out a reason why. Can you put a reason why as let's restly can you That's an answer to this coming in, we'll give a couple more minutes to everyone else.

Thank you very much. All right, the answer is right, we have coming in so far, B and C, so let's look at B and C.

deny one of implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion. Let's take a look. We have a different conclusion.

Yes, we have disagree with the premise. Let's take a look. Is this an implicit process of filling all the blanks?

Rifka said we do not need to stop and ask for directions, not stop. Why? Because we would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.

So, Rifka doesn't literally say we're lost, It only just says we would only need to do that if we lost, implying that we're lost.

So, this is going to be correct. Let's take a look at C, imply that Rifka's argument is invalid. Maybe, by accepting the truth of his premises, no.

They said, no, we are lost. They said, don't accept your premises. While rejecting exclusion, all they did reject the conclusion C is still going to be incorrect.

didn't correctly characterize that. Good job, everyone. Yeah, good. Let's take a look at one more. Let me know if anyone has any questions on that.

Same thing here. Let's break this one down. What is this one saying at all? I like this. It's actually This one's funny.

I usually really dislike all the dialogue ones, but I like I actually kind of like this one Here's a math There is not super machine there's a math Riddle Like a Like a list of numbers Is known as a set of numbers

So, this is the set of numbers, one, two, three, four, like the set of all numbers is like one, two, four, dot, dot, dot, you know, so, the sets of all sets of numbers is this set plus this set plus every other possible set.

So, the question is, the riddle is, does the set of all sets of numbers include itself? And if no, it's not the set of all sets of numbers.

I guess it must. Anyway, some of those, what's Frank saying to Lance? And yes, it can't really list itself in there, because then I think it grows by one.

Every time you list itself in there, think it grows by one. Anyway, I think that's what Frank is saying to Lance.

So let's hold on to that and find an antitrust that matches that. I'm going put an answer in the chat whenever you see a good one and put a reason why,

You Oh, I guess there's one more thing that happens in that math that I'll have. If the set of all numbers.

If it includes itself, it grows by one. But the one inside of itself also grows by one. Anyway, no idea.

We got two answers coming in. Both people say B, they have no reason why, but it's going to be B, shows Atlantis's conclusion, involves in any contribution.

Great.

Nate.

Huh. What does that mean?

Okay. That's exactly right. Let's take a look. This is saying, and actually, let's go with a Marissa thing, Frank's rebuttal is that if you're applying the rule to itself, yeah, exactly, and one would have to accept there is an exception, which has to mean one general rule has no exceptions, which consciousness is generally right.

Lance says, based on experience, I conclude that every general rule has at least one exception. But the problem here is if you say every general rule, that means there's an exception to your general rule, too.

And in fact, Frank says, okay, if that's true, you've now given us a general rule, and if you say there's no exception to your general rule, you are now involved in a contradiction, and you must withdraw your conclusion.

Hey, yeah, yeah, really good job. This would be a good job, everyone. We're just about out of Keep going with your setting.

I was doing a really good job. It's all your participation. Keep coming up with the reason why you're doing stuff on the LSAT and in all of your life, try to understand your motivation for doing stuff.

It's super important for introspection and growth and whatever else we're supposed to be doing here on Earth. So and I'll be out that.

So thanks so much for your time. Have a good rest of your day and get some rest and happy studying.

Thank you, everyone.