Comparative Passages (Advanced) with Nate

Oh, that's good. Okay. Hey everyone, I'm not sure what happened on a backlink. How's everyone going? How's everyone doing?

We got class coming up. just going to give people a few minutes to sign in. How's everyone today? We've got already here.

Be zero risk That Harry was that Joseph. Hi everyone. Thanks for joining us I was just starting going what when do you plan on taking LSAT do you know?

that's ragu ragu ragu is your wrist Did you have you back ragu? How's everything going? How's India? December good You Yeah, we'll just give you one more minute and we'll go ahead and get started I Say that over

Let's go to September 5th. Great. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. Come back to the USA. Perfect. Perfect. Yeah. I'm going to get started.

So I have one of my name is Nate. This is, um, advanced comparative passives. Um, go ahead. As always, just keep yourself on mute, but unmute yourself any time you want.

Ask any question you want. And yeah, does anyone have any questions before we even get started. On comparative passives.

Joseph is saying November, kind of plateauing at the same. For now, helping Tommy, who helps absolutely Joseph. Yeah. Good.

Daily file or five has joined us as well. Thanks for joining us. Yeah, we're gonna get started. me know if anyone has any questions already before we start.

Also, I might have asked your name wrong, didn't it? Where is that name from? I ask? I almost looks like a Hungarian lesson.

I'm not sure. don't have to tell me either. Just out of Okay.

Cool. Europe. Nice. Very cool. How do you pronounce that name? Like Billy. Like Billy? Billy. Okay. Great. Thank you.

I just want to not mispronounce everyone's name. I feel like I'm very prone to do so. Yeah. Okay. Let's go ahead and get started.

Also, welcome Tremain is just joined us. How's it going Tremain? How's it studying? might have something I must say.

Thanks. You can have a time. Okay, we're doing advanced, comparative passages, and because it's advanced, I just want to dive right in.

All I really want to say is, we're really just looking for overlap. I really want to pay attention to as for passage A and B.

What's the topic and what's the scope of that topic? How broad is that topic that you're really narrowing in on one part of the topic?

Or is very broad? And what's the conclusion and what's the strength of that conclusion? For example, does this one say must and the other one say, maybe or should or whatever it is?

And just a quick tip, almost all these comparative passages do one of two things. They either have these of these topics similar topics with similar conclusions, or they

A has similar topics with opposing conclusions. So we want to focus on that as well. Any questions so far?

Joseph, did I write a passage in October 2010 give me more trouble than I expected? No need to interrupt the regular plan, but if there was extra time at the why don't I go straight into that one?

October 2010 comparative passage. not? Great question, Joseph. I'll put that on my notes, so we're going start that one.

Also, if our teamers are joining us, let's let let us us see if I can find this comparative passage.

Like I said. Anytime you want unmute unmute and ask any question you want, like a lot of audience participation, lot of feedback.

It's really helpful for you all and for me, and so there's no restrictions on that. Just keep yourself on mute when you're not talking, so there's no feedback sound.

But yeah, let's just dive right into this. Let's do a paragraph by paragraph. Let's take a look at this first paragraph and let's see what we see.

What's going on this first paragraph here? Does anyone have any sense of this first paragraph? Yeah, I do something about languages.

mean, not too much to say this. It will just go straight into that second paragraph as well. I can't see the whole thing.

Let's see if I can make this a little bit smaller. Is that too small, everyone? If that's too small, can make it bigger, but if it's not, we'll leave it like this.

Thank you. To remain after 10 minutes of the sign language, sure. how do you mean to me to be able to share?

Exactly. And what? Yeah, good. Let's bring a paragraph to you at the same time. What do we notice here?

What seems to be our topic in scope and logical force?

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Great question. That's the health and language. Yeah. Absolutely. . my. Apparata. Here. Apparattices. Okay.

Okay. you. you. And just a little bit better. I can try it in the other app thing. Yeah, Joseph.

Perfect. Really good. I want to point out a couple things that I want everyone to look at to focus on here.

Especially as we're talking. Do we see any examples? Do we see any lists? Do we see any comparisons? Do we see any causes causality and we see any author attitude.

These are really things I want to focus on as I read as well. These are really things I want to focus on.

Lots of examples. Good, Joseph, exactly. I see causality. The frog calls. to cause other females to approach and other males to retreat, but not because they attribute desire or knowledge to other frogs, them as macaques, in which chimpanzees, going through the top, there's a comparison with the humans, the perception of others, and others' mental state is perhaps the most common vocalization stimulus.

Great. more on this, what do we see, what do we think maybe is the, can anyone put together like a topic and a conclusion about this topic?

then we'll go on to the next passage and take a look and see how much, how similar, how different it is.

Yeah, good, Joseph. author doesn't seem to think animals have intention and language as much as places. Yeah. And it's, yes, there's an intention to call or to signal but not to influence other.

people's desires. It's more of a reflex. I'm not trying to tell you, Joseph, that I see a predator. I'm just trying to shout out when I see a predator.

It's not about informing or influencing others. Unlike our first line, one function of language is to influence others and behavior by changing what they know, believe, or desire.

perfect. Regular says, humans and animals respond to their own language or direction and see if they're perceived. Yeah, Let's bring in the next part here.

Of course, another super long paragraph. let's go ahead and just do the first two paragraphs at once. We'll bring in the second passage.

I'll scroll down. That's okay. I'm always frustrated when I can't get all on the screen at the same time.

Which is how it is, huh? This is passage B and this is passage A. And point out, if you see an examples list, comparisons, causality, or author attitude.

of the exact same human's voice sounds cause others to do something or think something where the animals are just kind of somewhat blindily screaming out into the dark.

you you This also matches more what Joseph is saying. idea of a reflex. And you know what's on this second passage here.

What does everyone notice so far? Command animals to be intentional. but not deceptive. Yeah, good. Now, just on a curiosity, I want to agree with this.

I think that has to like ambush hunters. I imagine that doesn't that have some sort of level of deception or lying at some level?

They want to not be caught like a lot of predators are like sneak attack ambush predators, right? Like most predators aren't just going in there attacking head on or like sneaking out from behind her.

Isn't that some level of deception? I guess they're not using language to see but not talking as well in those situations by not shouting out, hey, making noises in that situation or making sure you're downwind or whatever it is.

Isn't that deception or am I giving too much credit here? Yeah, but anyway, they're making a decision. things should be reflex and communication, and especially at the top, spontaneous and creative and not rigid.

So there's animal communication versus human communication. Good. Let's bring in this last paragraph here. I mean, animal planets has a different opinion.

They preach the high-end elective predgrams. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think they're a lot smarter than we give us because of them credit for us.

I think that's kind of the nature of the beast, so to speak, in terms of, I think it's our, maybe not our job, but like a part of being human is to assume we're different than other.

creatures, same with other creatures. If a tiger was worried about the rights and the health and the happiness of its prey, it probably wouldn't want to hunt.

So it has to kind of convince itself, there has to be some sort of deception, there has to be sort of this disconnect.

Where an animal of predator doesn't look at its prey as having knees and desires and wants. Otherwise, it would feel guilty and wouldn't hunt.

And it's the same as humans, we have to not think that animals have the same feelings that we do.

Otherwise, we feel guilty for eating them or not prioritizing them at the very least above our needs. And I think that goes straight to the heart of what it means to be a human or any animal.

There's some level of differentiation between you and your victim that allows you to commit acts of victimization or at least not prioritize others above your own will.

being in your own family well being. I'm not sure if I'm going way too far on the scope of this LSAT, but I think that's what's happening.

Reducing intention versus words may be perceived differently because of different skills based on habitat getting off over time. Sure.

Animals ability one other is different human animals. Absolutely. Joseph discusses some parallel phenomena that's passing the A in this phenomenon.

Sure. Yeah. Let's bring in this last paragraph. What does this bring in? Do we see examples of lists, comparisons, causality, author attitude?

What do we see here? Comparison, yeah, to me, what comparisons do you see?

So I think they're kind of hedging their bed. Yeah, sure. and hedging their bet elaborate on that if you don't mind what is their bet now that you've told us about the hedge there is that animals are not intentional in there and others were communication whereas humans are intentional and by Association use language to communicate intentionally.

Yeah, and then what is this idea of what means but these arguments are circular. So, why did we change directions there?

Clearly there was a shift that were a priority.

I got to grab real quick. Let's pretend that's not cool yet. Let's see if that even comes up from the questions.

But let's hold that because I'm not convinced. can't use that in a sentence so that I do not know what that means.

So we're going to hold that just to pick a good paragraph passage here for us. Harry says the comparison of difference between animals and human communication.

Absolutely. Does anyone see what the role of this word but is? What side is our author finally on? What does this shift mean here?

What did our author say but here? later on in line 36, in fact, the narrowing of the perceived gap between animal communication and language, as pointed out by Tremaine, revealed by recent research with chimpanzees and other animals, calls into question.

What is it calling into question? Harry, do you to take this one? Did you unmute?

Yeah, I like that. I want to add in something here. I want to add in something. I see the passage start with this idea that many scientists do this.

A lot of logical reasoning, a lot of reading compasses start this way. Everyone who's really smart, all the smartest people in the world, everyone thinks we should sleep 10 hours, eight hours a day, we should eat our vegetables.

Everyone says it's a good idea to take care of other people and be kind. At the beginning, it starts with, this is what the experts, so-called experts say.

By the end, I'm absolutely convinced that our author is almost always gonna say, but I'm the smartest person in the world.

I know the one true way to live life. I know everything. And- the scientists are wrong, we shouldn't sleep eight hours a day, shouldn't take care of other people, we shouldn't be kind, shouldn't eat our vegetables.

And in this case, but it's kind of the humans and animal communication is not that different. And the fact that is what happened, our author by the end said, but these arguments are circular, these scientists arguments are circular, they're just running around in circles.

They're assuming that there's no conscious intention, conscious intentions ruled out, I don't know what our priority is, I'm just going to skip that word, conscious intentions ruled out, and then its absence is taken as evidence that animal communication is fundamentally different from human language.

So first we say this doesn't exist, and then I go around and circle and I say, oh, look, that doesn't exist, so it must be different.

must be different. I'm always watching this, this happens all the time and logical reasoning too. experts believe people need money.

But I'm going to tell you, we don't. And it's always so ridiculous, our author, and I really mean there's lot of what you'll find in law school, and as you become a lawyer.

A lot of the people you meet are very opinionated, very stubborn, and the self-professed smartest people in the world.

And so that's what you're going to see on the LSAT. You're going to see the smartest people in the world.

Let me take a look at some comments and regular author opinion, but indication and direction, but for, yeah, exactly, Sam, co-type argument, exactly, and Joseph out there is not nearly as confident in the science as the author paragraph A, author B thinks the arguments are like too much on too many basic assumptions and not enough research, especially in my new data, but for, if not for this reason, exactly, Regu.

So take that all back to the top and bringing this to finish this one thought at the bottom, we see in fact the narrowing of the perceived gap between animals and humans is revealed by recent research.

So recent research is saying it's not such a big difference between human and animal communication. It's narrowing the gap.

And at the end, it's from line 60. call is into question not only the assumption is the difference is qualitative and not quantitative, but also that we animals only respond mechanically to stimuli whereas humans speak with conscious understanding and intent.

What does this phrase mean? And the difference is qualitative rather than nearly quantitative. What would that mean?

It's quantity versus quality. They're saying it's not just that we have a bag of one apple versus a barrel of a lot of apples.

It's actually not just a quantity difference, one versus nine. It's quality. This is like a rotting apple and this is one really beautiful animal, not just how much.

communication there is. Also hello to Austin, who just joined us. Joseph, maybe he rejoined. So welcome back. Yeah, anything more on this?

And can we go back to the top and talk about what's the topics? What's the scope of those topics?

What's the conclusion? What's the strength, no conclusion? And we seem like we have similar topics with similar conclusions or similar topics with opposing conclusions here as between these two processes.

Would anyone like to take a little try here at these ones? I'll bring it back to the topic as well.

Yes, I would say similar topic of posing conclusion, both talking about languages, talking about animals and humans, one says animals seem more goal-oriented and not purposeful, whereas, no, not purposeful and not purposeful, and another one says actually there's not that big a difference between human and animal communication.

How about the scope of these topics versus the strength of the conclusion? They both do seem to talk about animals, they talk about both them talking about or no monkeys, but one talks about frogs and primates, this one talks about and primates.

and this one talks more about replays. Yeah, pretty similar scope as well. Okay. Any other question on this? Any other notes?

not, let's take a look at the questions. What's the primary purpose? Can we come up with an anticipation here before we read the question?

What is the purpose of of these pathways? I guess we basically come up with it. It's this idea. I don't want to see it.

I want to see if we can find a good one. Let's see if we can find it. Basically, what we were talking about has been...

I did not mean to click that. was trying to scroll up. Let's go back. Undo. Can't undo. Just ignore that A is clicked right now.

I can't see an unclig it. Let's see if we can find your answer in the chat whenever you see it.

Put a reason why you think your answer is correct in the chat when you think you have it. It says computer language and communication among human examples.

Absolutely. Joseph, a priori is Latin for from what come before? or basically refers to things arrived at by deductions rather than observation research.

Sure. Okay. How would that fit in this sentence? So, a conscious intention is ruled out by deduction and not by evidence, and then we try to find evidence for that.

Yeah, sure. That makes sense. It sense. Thank you, Joseph. Does anyone see which one of these answer choices matches the primary purpose here?

Put in your answer choice and put in why in the chat when you think you have it.

Yeah, sure. Both passages are primarily concerned with addressing which of the following questions. I'm just going to scroll back down now though.

Primarily concerned with addressing which of the following questions. I'll put it in the chat. Primarily concerned with addressing which of the following questions.

Oops, I did not send that to the whole chat. I sent that only to me. That's not helpful. In one second.

Go ahead and put it in the chat when you think you got it and put a reason why. And this is the individual passage is concerned with answering this question.

together, but individually. Those are saying here to do these questions, so we know the interest is going to hold back.

Thanks for your restraint, Joseph. I appreciate that. If you want to put in, we can discuss, you can put in the ones you want to discuss as well.

In the chat, so we can go deeper into the ones you might have gotten wrong if you still have questions as well.

The last three such as, okay, got it. Got it. We got two answers coming in and see if let's wait for couple more answers.

You You Yeah, so we have B and E as the answer is coming in, let's take a look at E, we're go from the bottom up.

Is there a sign of a consensus about the differences between animal communication systems and human language? This is very much on the right track.

If I were to the two passages together, I would think this is the right answer. But we're asking. Both are concerned with answering this question as an individually.

Let's hold this because I don't think either one of them talks about And in individual passage, we're not reading them together necessarily reading them separately as possible.

this question. So I think both of them are saying one agrees with the science and then one says they disagree with the science or they agree with more recent science.

So I don't think they either one of them individually discussed consensus as for B are the communication of animals characterized by conscious intention and yes they both discussed that.

They both discussed that from the very first line on the top here but these arguments are clear conscious intentions ruled out from the top here.

Something about intention down here at the bottom not as purposeful and core goal oriented and they're not trying to inform anyone intentionally.

Yeah at the top they're inadvertent. Great it is gonna be a really good job everyone. Let's bring in another question.

In discussing the philosophical for philosopher Mark Martian, Maritain, the author of passage B seeks primarily to, let's try to come with our anticipation first, why did we talk about Maritain?

just take a minute. philosopher Maritain on line 45, discussion of the honeybee's elaborate waggle dance exemplifies this view. What view are they referring to and something else?

I'll let everyone hold that for a second, put it in the chat if you see it, otherwise let's find an answer that matches, put it in the chat, whatever you think it is, and put a reason why, always force yourself to use conscious intention here and understand why you're choosing the answer to us if you're choosing.

you Why did we use the example of Mr. Marsha neither, of Mr. Mrs. Maratane, Jacques Maratane, Maratane, plus for Jacques Maratane, that's what the Google, I'll Google that later, you see if that's a real person.

Yeah, absolutely. French philosopher. Interesting. And learn something new every else that you know what this thing, you learn something new every comparative passage.

Then put your internet in the chat when you think you have it and put a reason why. Does our author and the end agree with the experts or does the author disagree and what did it mean by exemplify this view there on line 47?

What is this view? You I think you're talking about intention or lack of You

Probably, but what does it say below? Is it some sort of dance where bees return to the hive, communicate to other bees the distance and direction of food sources.

Right, Maritain does that. But would our author agree with that? Not necessarily right I've seen those videos on like YouTube or like TikTok I'm not gonna have to talk my sound test actually shows me we're like you get like a squirrel or something or a cat walking up to human like Grabbing their arm and walking now grabbing their finger walking them over to see the new babies doesn't that indicate That the animal knows that the human does not know about the babies and wants to show them something new they want to bring them somewhere Like there's got to be some level of conscious intention here And understanding other people don't have the same knowledge you do right Yeah, I agree with that.

Yeah, and so I think that's what our author is saying These arguments are circular conscious intention is ruled out priori.

Thanks to joseph we know that means without evidence, just by deductions, and then its absence is taken as evidence, animal communication is fundamentally different.

Yeah. Yeah. So which one of these says that our author disagrees, disagrees with Mr. Mr. Let's take a look D and B here.

got a couple of things coming in. Furnished specific evidence against the theory that most animal communication is merely a specific reflex.

This is on the right track, except this is evidence for the specific reflex, and then later on we shut that down.

There's evidence that we're going to shut down later. Looking at B suggests by illustration that is conscious intention underline the communication signs apply, but once again this is evidence, someone else is evidence that we're going to shut down that there's

no intention, instead it's going to be a describing interpretation of animal communication that the author believes rests on a logical error.

Not logical errors, it's a priori circular reasoning. Yeah, exactly. Exactly right. Good. Let's add in another one. Really, really tough one there.

Let me know if anyone has a question about that. The author of passage B would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements regarding researchers who subscribe to the position articulated in passage A.

Can I make this visible? So we're saying B agrees, I'll write it in the chat and we'll scroll down to the bottom here, so everyone can see everything.

Author of B agrees with which statements about researchers subscribing to the position of A. So I'm going to write that in

and chats. So we can see all the answers at once. Go ahead and put your answer in the chat when you think you have it and then we will and put in a reason why.

The author of B agrees with which statement about the researchers to subscribe to the position in A. What is A's position?

What is B's position? What would the B say about A's position? Put your answer in the chat whenever you think you have it.

What does passage A say? They say I don't agree and passage A, sorry, passage B says I don't agree with A and passage A says human and animal communication is very different, which seems to match that.

This one's actually quite similar to the previous question. Let's take a look here. The previous question said that the author believes that there's a logical error.

And this was actually saying the same thing. author passage B would be most likely to be viewed with which the following statements regarding researchers, probably take it in A, that once again, they D make assumptions about matters that should

be determined empirically. Just like Joseph told us, a priori, they're not determining this stuff evidence, but they're making assumptions.

Good, let's get to these three harder questions as Joseph asked us to originally, while we're getting to these ones.

Which of the following assertions for passage A provides support for the view attributed to meritane and passage B? So which supports meritane?

I'll put that in a check. Which of these assertions from A supports meritane in B? Let's see if we find one that matches.

Let's bring our anticipation that'll help us. Meritane and B said beings are showing evidence of non-intentional but re-collective signaling or communication.

Which of these would match that? fact, both all three of these questions so far. Three out of these four questions have been about Maritain and the difference between passage B and A being one says yes, one says no, there's a pose and conclusions.

Which one of these seems to match that? I want to make sure we get to all three questions here for Joseph.

So we're going to spend about two minutes on this, two minutes on the next one and two minutes on the last one.

One, four, four, four, four, Just if we'll take a look at those, do you need? Which of these matches the idea that author...

Maritain and passage A both believe that they're making their calls by instinct and not by intention to inform other people of something.

Which of these matches?

Yes. Passage A, Mun?

That's what I need to... Question. Yeah. tried to put it in the chat. Which of these assertions from passage A provides support for the view attributed to Maritain and passage B.

I'm trying to put it in the chat whenever we can't see it on the top there. which of these supports may retain in B.

Let's take a look at E and D here that Joseph pointed out. E, McCocks give alarm calls and predators approach and who calls upon finding food.

That's on the right track, but we want this idea of intent. That's the main difference between news to passage.

Every question is really harping on that one point, which is do animals intend to change the mental state of other animals?

D, there is no evidence that the male by salamous, by salamous frog, by salamous frog calls because he knows it is calls to affect the knowledge of other frogs.

That's it. That's it. All about intent. Every question has been about intent. Let's try to bring in, let me know if anyone has any questions on that.

Let's try to go to question number five here. The officers will be most likely to disagree and over. I'm just going to have to make this a little smaller to see these all.

Sorry about this. know it's small. Let me know if that's too small to see. What would the authors disagree over?

I can put all the answer choices in the chat too, I think. Like anyone wants to read them in the chat just because I know this is small.

I'm going to put this all in the chat everyone. this helps. Okay, we have couple of minutes coming in, A, B, C.

They would disagree over, A, the extent to which communication on humans evolved the ability to proceed to ventilators. That's on the right track, but I think the past is more about animals.

B, the importance of determining to what extent, and actually, and we can probably eliminate right off the bat because they both seem to agree that humans do intentionally purposefully communicate the animals' don't.

B, the importance of determining to what extent animal communication systems differ from human language. That's on the right track.

That's on the right track, but I think they're just in disagreement that they, one says yes, one says no, they're different.

C, whether human language and animal communication differ from one another qualitatively or merely in a matter of degree. or quantitatively.

that's the answer. That's the answer. It's specifically what's happening. Are they actually different or are they similar enough to not be different at all?

Good. onto this very last question, really good job, everyone. Last question, number six. Passage B difference and passage A in that passage B is more.

Go ahead and put your answer in the chat whenever you think you have it. And if you have an answer, a reason why I put it in there as well.

And just as a quick note, we're asking about the author of passage B is more what than passage A.

I think the main difference right is A agrees and B disagrees with what everyone's saying. Let's if we find one that matches that.

Do any of these say disagrees? Do any of these say disagrees with the scientists? Yeah. Yeah. We're just about a time.

only one that says disagrees. Let's take a and it's for circumspect in its refusal to commit itself to any positions with respect to it still until the research questions.

I think they did say but these arguments are circular. think they did say these arguments are wrong, are priori wrong or whatever it is.

So it is going to be E. good job everyone. Let's click review. Let's get a satisfying green and all those.

Perfect. Oh, I think I had to click one of them wrong. We got one wrong because I had to click A on that one.

Perfect. Yeah. Thanks so much everyone for your time. Have a good rest of your day. Please continue to be active and intentional in your communications with those humans and animals.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Harry. Have a good rest of your day, everyone.