Hard LSAT RC passage (in-depth walkthrough)

This video reviews a lot of the RC process, while working through the Science passage from Test 65, Passage 4, about trying to restore the soil of overly farmed land. Please let us know if you see any mistakes or have any questions.

[@medhagupta8417]

Love the video and respect the crazy amount of effort that has gone into making it.

[@guestuser3113]

I LOVE YOU PATRICK 😍😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘

[@guestuser3113]

OMG I GOT NOTICED BY PATRICK BRB FRAMING THIS!!!!! 😍😍😍😍

[@K_a-z3v]

Thank you thank you !!!❤

[@elfthings]

I MISSED YOU PATRICK

[@LSATLab]

ha, thanks fellow P.

[@ashikombat]

ohthatpatrick?

[@Chrystalxlopez]

you rock!

[@fruitpuncher7667]

Patrick, are there more videos explanations for single RC passages on LsatLab? Or are the closest type of videos are the classroom recordings?

[@LSATLab]

Hey-hey. Currently the closest type of videos are the classroom recordings. (We just hired a 3rd teacher so that I will potentially have more bandwidth to produce more of these lesson videos). I'm curious, if you don't mind elaborating --- is it better to make 1 of these "slick" cartoon-assisted video explanations or make a handful of "boring" video explanations that look more like a cleaned-up version of a Zoom recording (sort of like our LR or LG lessons on KZbin, if you've seen them). The high production values of the cartoon universe definitely takes longer to pull off. We know that people hate studying RC, though, so it might be worth it. If you were voting for quality vs. quantity of RC video explanations, which matters more?

[@fruitpuncher7667]

​@@LSATLab I would vote for the "boring", quantity explanations. Similar to how Matt records his classroom videos and the video explanations for the LGs in "Practice mode". Overall, Patrick your explanations are easy to follow along to especially for the newer RC passages. It's just that the classroom recordings are focused on earlier PTs (which is understandable).

[@LSATLab]

@@fruitpuncher7667 Thanks for the feedback!

[@r.p.8906]

@@LSATLab the cartoons are helpful to me for 2 reasons: relax the brain process ( I get frozen in my comprehension too much) and visual memory ( very strong in me). Thanks!!

[@sagarpatel2639]

Really very helpful...

[@mehtabbrar]

We need more animated cartoony videos asap

[@harshilpatel5769]

"A" and "D" sound pretty similar to me. Meaning, I can see how both "cannot" and "does not" are too strong. I am a bit confused here.

[@LSATLab]

Strong words, in and of themselves, don't make an answer right or wrong. A strongly worded answer could be fine, as long as we have textual support for it. So it's possible that two answers are equally strong, but one is correct and the other is wrong because the former is supported by the text and the latter is not. Strong wording is just a very common trait of wrong answers, so it's a red flag when we see it. It tells us that we shouldn't feel at peace with this answer until we can justify the harsh language with support text from the passage. But in this case, those two answers are of different strength. We just have to take in the whole sentence, not just a couple words. When we say "Thistles cannot grow in it", that is 100% / 0% binary. Not a single, solitary thistle can grow in it. If even one can grow in it, then it would be untrue to say "thistles can't grow in it". Meanwhile, if we said "It does not have a significant amount of thistles" that is not binary. It might have some thistles, but it would still be true to say it doesn't have a *significant number* of thistles. So it is stronger to say "There are zero X's" than it is to say "There is not a significant number of X's".

[@harshilpatel5769]

@@LSATLab Wow, thank you! First of all, I am so sorry I forgot to mention the question number but you knew exactly what I meant. And I was not expecting that in-depth answer at all, thank you so much. That clarified a lot for me. :) By the way, I am soon signing up for your platform.

[@r.p.8906]

@@harshilpatel5769 me too. very good explanation and not too much money wasted on advertisement that we need to cover for...

[@Tariswhite]

❤