Generalization/Example Meta-Structure (Beginner) with Nate

I'm gonna give people a few minutes to join who do we have so far we have blue Hendrix Mora Sonia and to Jerry hi everyone.

Thanks blue. I'm glad you can hear me You Hey, Maura, how's everyone studying going? How's everyone's recording in Congress?

Yeah. Oh, good. I was good. How's been? It's been good for me as well. Thanks for asking. That team has just joined us.

Hey, Fatima. We're going to give people one or two more minutes to join and then we're going to get into today's session, which is generalization example, structures, beginner.

Yeah. So just as a point, everyone already knows this. I think we've already all been together in session before.

Just keep yourself on mute in general, but the idea here is I love lot of audience participation, I love a lot of engagement, you'll get more out of it, I get more out of it, so just unmute yourself anytime you want and type and say anything type anything on the chat you want any time.

Really, you just get so much more out of it. Yeah. Does anyone have any questions before we get started?

Yeah, okay great, why don't we just go ahead and get started? So, okay, meta structures in general. thank you for asking blue.

I definitely want to go over that. Perfect. So, Okay, okay, okay. So what are we doing at all? What we're doing here is we're going over reading comp and on reading comp on the LSAT, you have to do two things.

You have to do your normal reading, reading for content or the what happens, and then you have to read for another skill to add a new skill to read for the presentation of the information or the structure of the passage.

It's not just, it's not enough to know what happens, but how the information was given to you, how it was structured.

So also hello to Harry who's just joined us. So what does that mean? What that means is read, as you normally would understand what's happening in the passage, but also notice the structure.

What is the structure? Well, there's minor, I guess I should say, there's major. and minor meta structures. What are the minor meta structures?

It's when they use specific structures to present the information to you, including when they use an example, or a list, or a causality, or a comparison to show to structure the passage.

We're going to structure the passage as a comparison between A and B. The major meta structures are not just the individual tools they're using, but the entire shape of the entire passage.

For example, there can be like a correcting the record is the shape of the entire passage. have LSAT, MAX, classes on every one of these major meta structures.

whole passage can be structured as a question and an answer, or as a problem and a solution. don't know what this is.

Here's the solution. We know what's going around. Here's what's happening. The one we're going over today is the structure of generalization, generalization, and example, metastructures.

So what does that mean? Let's talk about that right now and then we'll go straight into an example passage.

A generalization example passage looks like this. It's the author is going to make a sweeping generalization. Author makes a generalization.

Usually at the beginning, then the rest of the passage is an example of that. So what does this mean?

This is what the passage looks like. like. And then we should also notice what the main point is. The main point of these passages is the author's generalization and how it is illustrated by the example illustrates the generalization by and fill in the blanks.

Like if I give you a story like most people like dogs and the rest of the passage I talk about a specific person who owns a dog and likes dogs, I will say the example of Nate's grandma illustrates that most people

like dogs by showing a person who likes dogs. Yeah. Is that making sense there? That's the shape of the whole passage.

So the passage is going to look like this. There's usually like three paragraphs, paragraphs or five paragraphs. Let's call them three, two short ones and one long ones.

The beginning is going to be a generalization. It's going to be example. then the rest of it is just going to be elaborating on that example.

Is that making sense in general to people here? Also, hello to Alejandra, who just joined us. Thanks for joining us.

Alejandra was just going over what is a generalization example of a better structure in general. And it's just the entire shape of the passage will be shaped like a generalization.

And then and an example. That's what's happening here. Do you have any questions, you can always unmute yourself, ask any questions you want any time.

Otherwise, we can get into a passage. Also, let me know if anyone has any questions at all, and if not, I'll take a little note here, and we'll get straight into passage, okay?

Like I said, anytime you want, unmute yourself, ask any questions you want any time. Let's see if we can, we're going to go to, and I'll write it down here, we're going to open up, we're going to go into practice test 66 passage 4 is going to be the passage we work on right now.

If like to follow along at home, or if you'd like to just watch, it's okay. Okay. I want to add in one more note, we're going to go straight into that passage, we're going to break it down paragraph by paragraph, I want to try something today.

Okay, we encourage everyone at LSAT Max to start at the beginner level and then move on to the advanced level in terms of reading comp and what does that mean?

It means you do your work on time and at the beginner level you read three times before you do the questions and the intermediate level are going to read twice and the advanced level you're going to just read the one time before you do the questions and from here you can move on to time difference.

So we're going to try this right now, we're going to try it. Let's try the beginner reading method here now, and the way we're going to do this, it's a little bit tricky to do this in general.

So all I want everyone to do, just for now, just tricky to do as a group of people, I actually just want everyone to read the passage on your own.

And then we're going to read it together a second, and perhaps third time as necessary. So just go ahead and take your time and read the passage, and let me know when I should scroll down.

just going to read the passage in general. Yeah, just read no, no need to take notes. You can take notes if you want, but no need to take notes, because we'll go through the notes right now.

But if you can notice where the generalization in the example is, if you can. Thank you. Is that too far?

Thank you, How long is this passage, wow, is that too far? Okay. Thank you. We're going to go back to the top in a second.

Thank you, I'm to break it down one by one again here from the top, and just go in deeper.

And here's what I want to add in. All right, this time we'll discuss this. Okay, in our first reading, we just want to notice the major meta structure.

If we can figure it out that and the main point in our second reading We want to notice the minor meta structures in our third reading.

We want to notice the author attitude So does anyone see and I think the title of today's session give it away perhaps can anyone notice the major meta structure being employed here and If so, how I take your time put it in the chat whenever you know or undo yourself and talk about it Let's figure out what's going on at all You You

Yeah, so great question, are the hundreds to recap on LSAT, doing two things. For reading comp, we're reading for content, which is what the passage is about, but we're also reading for the presentation and the structure of the passage, because they'll ask questions on that too.

And so what is the structure? The structure can be divided into two ideas, the major and the minor meta structure.

The minor meta structures are they use examples or lists of causality or comparisons to prove a point or to show the information or to present the information to us.

The major meta structure, we have a whole bunch of different live videos on them, but the one we're going over today, one example of it is perhaps they can set the whole passage as a problem and a solution to that problem.

Or as what critics say about something and what critics are saying about critics. Today we're going over the major meta structure.

of a generalization or an example. A generalization and an example. And the idea here is the author gives an a generalization, usually at the beginning, and then proceeds to give an example of that generalization for the rest of the passage.

And the main point of such a major meta structure is just the idea that this example illustrates this generalization because.

So usually the passage is set up, maybe there's three paragraphs. They give you a generalization at the top. They introduce you to an example of that generalization.

And then they describe more more about the example the rest of the way. Can we see how this one is a generalization example meta structure here?

What are we making a generalization about? And then what do the rest of the passage do to illustrate that generalization?

It could be highly 100 good. So what would be the neurons in general and what would be the nuclear fission example?

I especially want to look for a generalization. It usually starts with a word like usually or in general or generally or often or most.

Most people like dogs. Is there any most people like dogs here at the start of the passage? Or is saying overlooking the evidence that was always there.

think that's right more. Can you elaborate on Is anything in the beginning of the passage say something? like, and the 100 crucial hypothesis was long over that good exactly, scientists thought to find evidence in our theory good, more, and we want to just go straight to this first sentence.

Advances in scientific understanding of things do not build directly or simply response to the data that are RMS. And in retrospect, after a major revision of theory, it may seem strange that a crucial hypothesis was long over the left, exactly.

So we have this word often. That's going to be my generalization. Off, thin, scientific understanding is not a smooth thing, but instead, is strangely and oddly overlooked.

We missed it. We missed something obvious. Good. Do we have an example of? That's going to be our generalization.

So we have an example of the generalizations that's rest of the passage. Yeah that's it more, exactly right, and in fact it starts right after the generalization there on line 5, a case in point, or an example, is the discovery of a mean by which the nuclei of atoms can be split, perfect, the whole rest of passage is about that, exactly right.

Good, yeah, so let's break this down one by one, let's just paragraph up paragraph now. Let's go through one by one and notice, in our second reading we want to notice the minor meta structure, let's notice examples, lists, causality, anything like that, so let's break this down paragraph up paragraph.

Go ahead and reread paragraph one and point out to me any minor meta structures, whether it's lists, examples, a valley of comparisons.

It looks like kind of a comparison to start. Scientific understanding is not direct and smooth, but instead does something kind of wrong or in retrospect.

Or I say it's paragraph one, examples of individual scientists by wanting a bombarding uranium, efficient is good, exactly the right examples.

Perhaps even. Maybe it's not causality, but I guess the bombarding uranium. And with neutrons, they're causing it to be, maybe not.

Nothing is, there's no effect. There's a cause there, but not really any effect. I guess maybe that led to a compiling on evidence.

I'm probably reaching out and stretching a little bit. OK. Let's move on. Take a look at paragraph two. Do we have any examples, list causality, or comparison to paragraph two?

Yeah, more exactly and then going in deeper, I would call that maybe a causality as a result because neutron bombardment experience were not aimed at achieving such a result of breaking an atom apart, researchers as a result were not even receptive to that possibility.

And maybe I can be an example analogous to a pebble thrown through a roof or window causing a house to collapse.

So we're going to throw a pebble in a causality, house to collapse. Yeah. Good. Let's go in a little deeper.

Let's go paragraph three, the long paragraph. Do we see any examples or lists or causality or comparisons here? How are we how interested, the lesson is for you.

The common view is that at neutrons breaking apart, good, and more researchers not realizing what they're seeing was vision good, exactly, almost a comparison, right?

Line 47 there. Despite the clear, despite the evidence, it went against all previous experiences. We have a comparison between your experiences and your experiments versus the evidence.

have causality. They did these bombardment experiments and it caused quantities of substances, what did they say? A puzzling group of radioactive substances produced by neutron bombardment of the uranium from the first sentence, that's a causality.

And what caused the products to go unidentify the next sentence, the products were made unidentified because precise chemical analyses were hampered by the many quantities and the dangers of working with radioactive materials.

But I guess it's a big list of, it's a list of things that's called out the list combined, minute quantities, dangers of working with radioactive materials, and lack of expectations of noticing them.

This list of three things caused the products to remain unidentified. Anxiety lists comparison examples. Anything more in this paragraph, if not, let's go on to

You Yeah, exactly. Good moron. That lack of perceptual link, conceptual link caused them to not notice, to not make the connection.

Maybe it's a causality, it's when scientists start to rush to corroborate the findings is when they realized it became clear, it caused them to realize that relevant evidence had been here the whole time.

What you're looking for was here the whole time. Yeah, so any question on this so far? Okay, if we can, can you give it one more glimpse?

I didn't notice the causality points out. Yeah, more up. There's causality all around, all over the place in science passages, especially all the pastures, but science especially.

Let's take one more glance through and just point out any sort of author, attitude words you notice. And let's see if we pick anything up, and let's see if we can come up with a nice main point for ourselves.

We wanna predict the main point before we get into it, and then we'll go into the questions. Good, more crucial.

hello to you, Srosius joined us, thanks for joining. We're on passage four and practice test 66. We're just reading in the third time here to touch anything we might have missed, and then we're gonna go into the questions.

Thanks See what we're puzzling, it may seem strange. Thank thank you, you, you, you, you, you thank thank Yeah, mm-hmm.

Good. Mora, not even receptive to the possibility. Good. No brain in the last so is this a longer passage than usual?

Am I going crazy here? You And provide the expectation for beginners. Yeah, I think I'll 100. Yeah, it seems a bit long and provide expectation that good.

Finally, good. Good. Good. Okay. Anyone? In other words, what we think the main point is. Remember, the main point in a generalization example type of passage is going to be this example illustrates generalization because, so how does this example illustrate the generalization?

Anyone put in the words maybe a, what to call, like a sample main point? How would we answer our main point question on this one?

More as an example of scientists discovering nuclear of Uranium in 1930s Europe. Illustration, generalization, sometimes a conceptual link is necessarily the link to the data.

Yeah, and then I want to add on to that. Actually, let me wait to see if anyone wants to add on to that, and I want to add on to that.

I want to add, it looks like, yeah, good, Alejandra, good. I want to say that generalization at the top here is advances in science are not linear or smooth in general, but instead require this major revision in a retrospective look at the data.

Yeah, but like progress. expressed only noticed in retrospect, and this is all illustrated by the example of nuclear vision.

Yeah, good. Yeah, does anyone have any comments on that? questions on this? Let's take a look at some questions.

Let's take a look at some questions. Okay, great. question, author's primary aim in the passages to you. Let's predict this first, and then when you put your answer choice in the chat, when you actually are predictions, basically, this is our main point, prediction we just made, so we've already predicted.

But put your answer in the chat when you think you have a good one, and put a reason why you think your answer is correct.

Thank you. You More minutes take a look but you answer in the chat. whenever you're ready. We'll wait a I'm not sure if there's more.

Which ones do you like and dislike more? Put anything in the chat and then we'll go into our explanations if we can.

Any of these look like they match what you predicted more. Be strict about it too. You want a really good match.

I think I would have a good point. was just worried. I'm the word erratic. What is a rat at the name?

Alejandra, I also think the lack of authors' attitudes helped with my limited answer choices. Yeah, more I say C.

Let's take a look at B and C. Does a static mean rated? It might just mean the opposite of directly or smooth building in response to data.

That's one of my biggest parts. I find it to be the most tricky on the LSAT. What is the same concept, assistant and then for the same concept?

And what is the LSAT consider a whole new concept? So erratic might be the same concept as not direct or smooth response to the data from the very first sentence.

But yeah, that is going to be the right answer B. Illustrate the erratic way in which scientific community achieves progress.

See, judge the relative importance of theory and experimentation science. So here, I don't think we had a conversation. Parents in between theory and experimentation that was judged.

I don't think we were told one is more important than the other I don't think we're told relatively which is more important, but instead we're told it takes a while of gathering data before we can look back and realize What we were looking for was here the whole time Yeah, any question on that if not, let's get on to the next question And let's try to predict again the most likely reason that the theoretical physicists in line 16 Would have been pleased about Maitner's insight regarding the neutron bombardment experience is that her insights Line 16 Doesn't seem like it has people in it.

Am I missing? Oh, yeah, next line. some theoretical physicists had produced calculations indicating in a principle It should be possible to break the evidence apart

Can we predict this answer before we can get to the answer choices? Why would these theoretical physicists be pleased about nightmares or mightners inside here?

Yeah, more exactly. Let's see if we find the answer to that. very You Yeah, let's take a look at A and D was dependent upon the calculations that they had produced was it dependent it definitely built upon but I'm not sure it's dependent it's hold on to a D confirmed that their earlier work indicated Adams could be split.

think that's going to be right. Yeah, date on line six. in, produced calculations indicating that in principle it should be possible.

they were hoping to find experimental confirmation of their principle. And then she was bombarding it on an unrelated experiment.

And it wasn't dependent on anyone in the past. She was doing unrelated work until she realized it was related.

Great. Any questions on this so far? And if not, we'll go on to the next question. Perfect. Which one of the following is most nearly equivalent to what the author means by the relevant evidence in line 62?

There, and that says it became clear that the relevant evidence had been present for some time, lacking mainly the right conceptual link.

Do we know what we predict and then find an action that matches? Yeah, let's start at you to anticipate little bit something about when scientists in Europe and North America rushed to corroborate the findings it became clear the relevant evidence was already there so what was it relevant evidence that was already there what was the relevant evidence and how it

And even looking at the first few words, which one of these says, which one of these even has a synonym for relevant evidence at all?

A starts with the results of experiment, sure, that could be evidence. B the results of experiment, sure, that could be evidence.

the clear chemical evidence, sure, that could be evidence. the fact, it seems like less synonymous with the word evidence and E the fact, seems like less than the most evidence.

So my first instinct is start with A, and C to see if eliminate those first before I get to D and E.

What was the relevant evidence that was already there that Mitner figured out? We were told, right, previously from line five, a case endpoint is the discovery of a means by which the nuclear atoms can be split between 1934.

precise chemical analysis were hampered. So it's not about these products going unidentified. That's not the relevant evidence. We don't have to identify the products.

We just have to realize later on that nuclear fission was happening the whole time. So, D, the fact that the sum of the number of protons of neutrons is the name of barium and the nuclei of barium and hechnetium was the same as the number of these particles in uranium nucleus.

Sure, that's also identifying the products and realizing the products. I think the concept here is from the top, it's a generalization example of meta structure.

So here the idea is we have proof that a nuclei can be split and we've had proof for five years.

But we didn't realize that was what was happening. We were looking for something else. We were doing unrelated experiments, even though the experiments were showing it.

It's like, how would I do this? I'm going around in a forest, trying to pick up samples of different dogs.

Like hair for everywhere teeth and I go back and I'm all the samples and I don't recognize these dogs but later on I find out it was Bigfoot sample the whole time there's Bigfoot fur and Bigfoot teeth or something that would be looking back at evidence that I was picking up for a different reason and at the top there says advances in scientific understanding do not build directly or smoothly based on that evidence but instead looking back it was so obvious the whole time and so that's going to be a the results of experiments a neutron bombardment uranium conducted by the community between 1934 and 1939 when the breakthrough was made line 10 line 9 when exiled Austrian physicists Lee mightner provided the crucial theoretical connection scientists compiled increasing evidence that nuclear fission had been achieved without however realizing that's what they were witnessing yeah good let's take a look any question on that one if not take a look at the next one given the information the passage which one of the following if true would be most like

to reduce the amount of time it took for synthesis to realize atoms were being split. How could they figure this out faster?

It was, um, this previous one was A. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah. It was A in this previous one. Looking at this next one, given the information of the passage, which one of the following absolutely you said, to reduce the amount of time it took for physicists to realize that they split the atom.

What would have sped up this process? And we can't really predict too much. Let's go to answer choice to just find what it looks like it's good.

How would we speed up the process? We saw a list of reasons perhaps why it took so long to figure out what was going on.

Or maybe we saw causality in here somewhere that told us why it took so long. Then put your answer in the chat whenever you think you see a good one.

Let's take a look at C and D, which the following would speed up the time it took to realize the atom was split.

To see if the physicist conducted experiments in neutron and brometronium had not been aware of the calculation indicated in a principle as possible so that it was possibly.

The more physicists concentrated on obtaining experimental results from the neutron brometron brometronium, the more physicists possibly see not knowing it was possible.

I don't know that we knew it was possible here, so I don't think it's C or D. Let's take a look at B.

The physicists conducting experiments did not have expectations. We were told unlikely we on 30 there. We're given a three-item list that caused the experience to go ununderstood, which were precise chemical analyses where hampered by how small it was.

There was dangers of working with highly radioactive materials and the expectation that they would all be close to uranium and nuclear composition.

Yeah, so expectation does hurt with them. We know that. And so B, physicists conducting experiments in neutron borantium didn't have particular expectations regarding the most likely nuclear composition of the byproducts.

They actually were told, made it take longer to identify the problems. Yeah, you said use for a saying. I hear you saying, I like to see you because it of discovered split-perfect.

Use for a saying. Oh, I started from pronounced your name wrong earlier. Use for a. I don't know if there's a different person in the chat room.

I don't like B because. Sorry, yeah, I'm sure I'm pronouncing everyone's name wrong. I just apologize. I don't think B because then it basically says you're not supposed to have about this.

That's not quite what it says. It just says, actually, let's even take a step back. Even if that is what it says, that's OK, because we don't bring in outside information.

That's really OK. It just has to be based on what we're told in the passage. Yeah. Yeah. So it is going to be let that in one final one and predict first if we can.

According to the passage, which is the following was true, the physics community during the 1930s. Let's see if can find out about the physics community in the 1930s.

All I know is we had from the top there, a group of Italian physicists first from Barti Uranium with the neutrons.

You can find the answer that either matches that, or also is correct if not that. And put your answer in the chat when you think you have it.

Let's take a look at A and B, and neglect it earlier theoretical developments. That's possible. That would be an inference.

But we're just going to according to the passage, so I'm not sure if we definitively did that. B, it reevaluated calculations that it can be split.

It could have done that, but we're just told that came up with calculations, not reevaluated down. But then instead, E, it recognized the dangers of working with radioactive substances.

are told, Fermi and others were chief's results and at the top, the products were named unidentified partly because of the dangers of working with highly radioactive materials.

Yeah. Yeah. tricky one. Very tricky one. Really good job, everyone. Does anyone have any questions on this overall? think everyone did a really good job here.

It's not. Yeah. Really good job. Thanks everyone for your time. Happy studying. Continue to be active. Participate in your life and your studying.

And thank you. Have a good rest of your day. I'll go ahead in the session. Thanks everyone for coming.

Thanks everyone.