Problem/Solution Meta-Structure (Beginner) with Nate

I was just starting going Yeah, you know when you're gonna take the test Oh

Okay. Great. If it's just, I see more people join, but if it's just you and me, this will just be like your own two doing session, but it looks like they have a more pure scenario here.

Yeah. So we got Joseph here. Hi, Joseph. How's going? How's it going? We'll see if it's Going well and you're just taking another time full exam today.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. We've got Rob the vendor here as well. Hopefully break 170 this time out. Great. Good luck.

Joseph. We'll get to skip people a couple more minutes to join and then we'll get started. Back in the USS' roguvins are good.

How did it go in India? No yet. Okay, why don't we go ahead and get started. hi everyone, my name is Nate.

I'll be the instructor today for the LSAT Max session, which is problem solution meta structures in reading comp. As always, just keep yourself on mute, but I like a lot of audience participation participation.

So anytime you want, just unmute yourself, ask any question you want and put it in the chat or anything like that.

But yeah, first of all, does anyone have any questions at all before we get started and then we'll go ahead and get started.

Okay, great, so let's talk, I'm just going to share my screen here, about what a problem solution meta structure is, and what meta structures are at all.

So the idea here is, Raghavana says the bureaucracy continues, court case continues, post point of it since eight years, wow Raghavana, I'm sorry, that's really tricky, that's really tricky.

Good luck, you're being strong, you're being really resilient here, that used to it, yeah, imagine, I imagine so. Yeah, so let's take a look here for just one second.

reading comp, what we do on the LSAT, we want to read both for a content, like a normal thing we're reading in real life, you read, figure out what's happening and to understand what's going on information, how the information is organized.

or another way to say that is the structure of the passage, the last questions both on content and on the presentation or the organization or the structure.

So we have to notice both. So how do we notice both? Well, we want to notice two things. We want to notice both what we like to call a structure for LSAT max.

We call these the reading comp structures. We call them meta structures. Sorry, my pen is just doing this one thing.

So there's a minor, I don't know why it does this, minor meta structures, but if I hold it more vertically, yeah maybe that works.

And major meta structures and so the idea here is a passage will engage or use both these type of structures, those minor meta structures and major meta structures.

And so the minor meta structures are if they use If they organize their passage using perhaps a comparison between two things or if they give us an example of something or if they say something is caused by something else causality, I'm really sorry about this really frustrating, or if they give us, going to take little so these are what we call the minor meta structures and these are things we want to notice, sorry about the lines everywhere, is going crazy, so also hello to Mora, just joined us, so we want to notice these things but then let's also talk about the major meta structures and I'll bring all this together in one second, the major meta structure, while the minor meta structures are the actual tools they use in the passage to organize or present the information, the major meta structure is

is the overall organization of the passage and so what does that mean? That means how is the passage actually organized itself and today's lesson is about the problem solution style passage, the and the name implies is going to give a solution to that problem and so just going in deeper into that what is the problem solution meta meta structure?

Why do we want to notice it and how will it help us on the exam? In the problem solution meta structure one thing something happens here is an issue or a problem and its solutions are described.

Usually, it'll start with the problem and then continue on to the solution. And the idea here is it could be singular or multiple, and if it's multiple, the author usually picks one as the best.

And so what does that mean? How does that help us? Notice this as being organized as a problem in a solution.

We already can really easily predict the main points. And the main point is going to be the solution that the author agrees with or just in general the author's preferred solution to the problem.

So if the passage is about the problem of whether it's ethical to keep dogs in your home and not let them ride, run around three, if the author says yes it is ethical, they're going to be safer in a home than they are in the wild.

That would be the main point. Does anyone have any questions on this so far? This is what we're taking look at today.

We're just going to learn about the different types of organizations of the past. So going deeper into this, let's just practice one thing.

We like to really encourage people to build up these reading comp skills because although in our whole life we always read for content like if you read a newspaper article or a book, you want to know what's going to happen or what's happening in the world.

On the LSAT, you have to add in this bill of reading for presentation or organization or structure. So this takes time and it's a long process with a lot to catch.

So we encourage you to read sort of at like three levels here depending on whether you consider yourself a beginner or if you consider yourself an intermediate or advanced reader, no matter what, I would always start at the beginner level and then move on to intermediate, they move on to advanced.

And the idea here is you want to do your reading untime. And as a beginner, you want to read three times, then do the questions.

As an intermediate reader, you want to read twice, and as an advanced reader, you want to read once, and from there, you can move on to reading on time.

But because there's so much ground to cover, there's so much to notice, you want to read at three times.

That's what we're going to practice doing today. On the first reading, you just want to notice the meta structure, and the main points, which I'm trying to keep erasing these lines in a second.

On the second reading, you want to notice the minor meta structures, these things. Do they use comparisons, examples, lists?

On the third reading, you want to notice the author attitude or author voice. So we're going to practice that today.

actually going to read this passage multiple times, and practice this. Does anyone have any questions so far on this?

Okay, we're going to start one here, we're going to start with an older passage, and then I'm going to give you a homework for a newer passage for your homework.

I want you to try practice test 89, passage 2, and today's passage is going to be practice test 45, passage 4, and we're going to practice all these skills together.

Just if we get a chance if we finish this passage along with the homework, and we'll start the homework together, but if not, go ahead and try the homework on your own if you'd like more practice on these problems and solution method instructions.

And before we even get into that, does anyone have any questions so far? If not, let's go right in, I'll just share my screen.

Okay, so here's actually what we're going to do, we're going to read this multiple times. If you can, I'm just going to have everyone read the passage once.

Let's see if I can, so any way to see this all at once, not really. Oh, yeah, I'll give everyone a few minutes to read this first part, and then I'll scroll down to the second half, and I just want everyone to read it once, and we're going to discuss whether we noticed that major meta structure, and we're going to discuss whether we noticed the main point, and then we're going to go deeper into a second reading and notice all the little tiny little bits and pieces.

So go ahead and read this, and we will discuss in a second. we're going deeper into and into reading, and into

I'm going to move this down just a little bit. Thanks for having us. You Let me know if I can go too fast or if I need to scroll back up, this is a practice test 45, passage 4 if anyone wants to follow along on their own screen too, in case I'm moving too fast or if I need to I'm

Is there anyone not done yet, or who wants me to scroll back up? If not, we'll start our second reading here, we'll go paragraph by paragraph and break down all the minor meta structures we notice as well.

Okay, let's take a look for one second here. Today, we're looking at problem solution meta structures, major meta structures.

Does anyone notice, can anyone interpret this passage as a problem and a solution? What is the problem? And what is the solution to that problem that the author is given?

Does anyone see anything like this, could anyone think of anything yet? Okay, Yeah, good. Good. Yeah, is there a solution, is there a real solution offered here that the author likes, or did they not even like the offered solutions?

We got an answer. Morris says, the problem is interpreting Canadian Constitution about Indigenous Peoples' rights and the problem of provincial courts have the burden of interpreting the Constitution also the burden is on what their protected customs, on the Indigenous people to say what their protected customs are.

Exactly right, Morin. I want to go a little bit deeper. It actually might be even a step back from that.

On the top, the problem might be the struggle to obtain legal recognition of Aboriginal rights, the struggle for Aboriginal rights.

And the solution was on line five, the federal government of Canada extended constitutional social protection to those Aboriginal groups, already recognized.

by the law. So the federal governments added protections for the Aboriginal groups. They're now going to be protected by law.

So it's obtained legal recognition of Aboriginal rights. So it's almost like they had their own rights, but the government wasn't recognizing their rights.

They had their individual rights and their individual land claims, everything, and the government's offered solution was to protect via the Constitution, extended constitutional protection to those Aboriginal rights already recognized under the law, extend constitutional protection to the Aboriginal groups protected by law.

This is the solution. What is the author's opinion on that solution? Does the author agree with that solution? Joseph H.

Park Solution Solution. Moving isolated cases from Provincial Court since we've working in a sure absolutely joseph, is one of the options for sure, than our problem interpretation issues, constitutional rights, provincial courts and jurisdictional problems, federal versus state, provincial, sure, absolutely.

And then here, those are often, I think this is a good solution to offer constitutional protections to the Aboriginal rights, or do the authors say something else, and I think Mora might have brought it up.

What does our authors say about this? I see the word but there in the line 11. Here I go, read it again one more time.

A second half of that first paragraph seems like it's the author's opinion on this solution. Oh, the solution was to put their rights in Constitution, but it's not going very well More and why is it not going well?

That's the author's. That's probably going to be the main point. Why is it not going very well? Right there in that first paragraph, yeah, I'm more sane, because of other issues and rulings and rights.

Absolutely. I'm more sane. The provinces have to figure out how interpret the Constitution. Exactly. which customs are recognized exactly?

on line 11 here, if the problem is how do we recognize Aboriginal rights, you kind of imagine if you'd step back, yeah, the Aboriginal people and any Indigenous people would have their own rights and rules and regulations and laws, how does the federal government, the nation's government of Canada, interact with those rights, you know, because it's like two different competing law systems trying to govern here.

And so the solution was the federal government decided to recognize Aboriginal rights and say, okay, your laws are now valid in our Constitution, your laws.

But what does the authors say about this? The author says, but... This decision has placed on provincial courts, provincial courts, the enormous burden of interpreting translating the necessary general constitutional language, so interpreting the constitution is not easy, and we have to notice the exact logical force, it's an enormous burden, we always want to notice that, and turning the constitutional language into ruling, so the constitution says treat everyone equally, whatever, and so how do you use that law in court?

You literally have to treat everyone equally as in if you give your friend a hug, have to give everyone a stranger on the street a hug, like they have to interpret this general language into specific rulings in court, and the result has been inconsistent recognition and an establishment of Aboriginal rights despite the continued efforts of Aboriginal people to raise issues concerning their rights.

And so the result is because everyone's interpreting it differently, all the courts have to interpret this general language. The problem is, it is now inconsistent.

The rulings are inconsistent. Perfect. Everyone's seeing that here. And we have Joseph H. is saying. It's an often ineffective solution because the courts are ill equipped to process and recognize longstanding indigenous traditions, especially those that are only recently documented in writing also the term indigenous is relatively vague to non indigenous courts adjudicating these issues.

absolutely. We've got a whole list of problems. You know, coal ownership rights burden is not on the originals who did not keep power exactly right.

Nicole is bringing up another problem exactly right. There's a whole list of problems. Perfect. So this is the basic structure of the passage.

This is what we always want to notice with these men. So let me add to this, let me elaborate on this, not add to this.

Let's take this one or step to our second reading. Let's go paragraph by paragraph and break this down a little bit deeper.

And let's bring in, especially if we notice any minor meta structures. Are we going to notice any comparisons, examples, causality, or lists?

How are they organizing and presenting this information in the passage? How is the passage structured? Let's do it one more time paragraph by paragraph.

Let's go a little bit deeper in this second reading. I'm going to fold in the third reading. Otherwise, we're not going to time to get to questions.

So let's do the third reading and the second reading at the same time. Because there's multiple of us, so we'll just count it as multiple readings.

But I want you to all try on your own three separate readings. So let's see if we notice also author attitude as we read.

Thank you. They have a little list of people it was extended to. The Indian, the Inuits, and the Metis people, a list of people who get these rights.

And then we have a little bit of causality, right? The cause, something has been caused, A causes B. This solution has the idea of extending constitutional rights as placed in enormous burden on courts.

And we have a little bit, perhaps, of cause, a list, and a comparison as between courts and other courts.

We're getting sort of inconsistent rulings. This must be like a little balance being sort of. balance. I don't know if anyone's getting that sense or that vibe.

It's like weighing the two sides, don't know, whatever. Okay, anything else on that first paragraph? If not, we'll fold in this second paragraph too.

you notice anything for that first paragraph, let me know. Let's take a look at the second paragraph too. If anyone's seen these in minor meta structures.

You I see a list here and I see an example here does anyone see an example or a list and I see a couple causality 925 an example, what's that example Joseph?

The term indigenous is difficult to interpret and it previous to that that's an example of the previous sentence there.

Difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived rights. This is an example of a difficulty that's arisen when applying rights and for example of one of these difficulties.

An example of a difficulty is it's not easy to figure out what is indigenous mean and further on there from my 30 it's not

not even easy to figure out what customs mean, because it's only has to be, it can only be longstanding, traditional customs, exactly right, overseeing the toddler's morning routine, just exactly right.

If you want to unmute and just talk to us, okay, too, we have a toddler in house right now.

think I mentioned in previous session, my fiancee, her friends here with her son, and he's very cute and he's very loud, so I definitely get that.

I see a list here on that previous sentence, online sort of 20, Aboriginal rights and Canada is defined by the Constitution as rights to ownership of land and resources, right to self-governance, and the rights to legal recognition of indigenous customs.

These are the list of Aboriginal rights, and I see a little bit of causality, which is just maybe, I might be stretching a little bit, because they follow oral traditions, it's hard for them, or it's difficult to enforce these rules, but they originally had a bunch of oral traditions or pastings on orally, and then because of that sort of difficulty in interpreting terms, it's once again hard to give people rights.

On this same note, I read a really interesting story, lot of humans have oral traditions, they've had oral traditions since before writing, obviously, and some of the oral traditions, it's easy to look back at pre-modern humans as maybe not being as smart as humans, but they were smart enough to create society and start cities and begin everything we have now.

So they were plenty smart. Um, but it's easy to like discount then and not trust their stories, but some of their stories are true.

There's stories in like Siberia Of native people seeing big red hairy elephants and so there's still oral traditions of a time when they were like Mastodons or mammoths or whatever those ancient woolly mammoths or whatever, you know And there's oral traditions of people coming across the sea and reading like australia um, despite like island hopping just getting in a canoe and just going out Throwing yourself into the void and seeing if you could land on an island And um, we know that this is true We know there's there's archaeological evidence of people going from the islands all the way to australia They're not having a clue if they'd ever hit land or not Like taking a huge risk and they still have the oral tradition oral tradition So we know some of these stories are at least true and accurate and we can trust some Uh, we have stories there's oral traditions a little bit of people crossing the land bridge When there used to be a connection between like russia and elasti that they would walk across the frozen ice the barren

trait. And one of the most interesting ones I've heard, and I have no idea whether they're trusted or not, I want to trust it.

But you know, can't trust all the oral traditions that are thousands of years old, you know, don't know, there's this like a game that telephones eventually, the story changed enough, it's not true anymore.

People have stories of a time before the mood. I would love to trust that. I would love to believe there was a time in human history that there was no moon, and it's hard to believe.

But I have no idea. Like, I have no idea. I was loved if that was true. That's my favorite oral tradition, that people have stories of history before the moon existed.

Anyway, thanks for listening to that. Let's take a look at paragraph three. Also hello to Harry who's just joined us.

Thanks for listening to my rant on the moon. Let's take a look to see if there's any minor better structures in this last paragraph.

Exactly more, there's an example of land ownership and for the previous sentence, it's an example of interpreting the meaning of the word ownership exactly.

And so what happens in this example, Mora, what happens here? In the 1984 case, an Aboriginal group wanted full rights that included the right to sell land or the resources, but the law previously recognized only the Aboriginal right to use land, and regrettably, perhaps offer attitude there, they're gonna have to appeal to the Supreme Court where one hopes they will have a better ruling, a ruling more

in our favor. Yeah. And any more on this last paragraph, and if not, let's take it all the way back to the top and see if we can put together our own sense.

Joseph says, what are the minor meta structures again? is just a four item list. We're just looking for comparisons, examples, causalities, and lists.

They love to ask questions on these things. We want to notice these things. And let's see if we can, let's take a moment to see if we put into words our main point.

The first question here is going to be a main point question. So let's see if we can anticipate first.

What is the main point of this passage? anyone put into words? Would anyone like to try to take the little dab at that?

You I would even say just as a reminder if it's an a problem in solution meta structure the authors opinion on the solution or their preferred solution is the answers the main points.

Some more says problem of legal recognition of indigenous land rights in Canada. And what is the author's opinion on that problem.

Bring in one last little element to that little bit extra on that one. It looks like the author is saying, yeah, more the author's opinion is solution of writing rights and the constitution isn't working, exactly, or going into a little bit more specifically, oops, sorry.

It looks like the author is saying the second half of that first paragraph, the problem is how do we give Aboriginal rights legal effect, the solution is we recognize them in the constitution, but that isn't working because the provincial courts inconsistently interpret the constitution, perfect.

Let's take a look at answer trust and see if find one that matches. Go ahead and put it in the chat when you think you have it and put a reason why, really think it through, look at looking in the mirror and ask yourself why you're answering the question the way you are.

It's very helpful. We've got maybe two answer courses coming in, more on Raga vendor, we'll wait for couple more and then we'll go into some explanations.

Can you put in why you think that's the right answer in the chat? It's really, really good to push yourself to ask why, probably in all of life but especially on the LSAT too.

And in fact, Mora, what word did you say the author often used? And we always want to look for the exact correct logical force words.

Does any of these mention Mora's key word here difficult? No. No. Yeah, let's take a look, see if it's to be the right answer, the only one that mentions the word difficult, more in nailed that, Nicole has got it as well, everyone's got it right, really good job, cost additional language, Joseph got it, Reggo and has got it, cost additional language aimed at protecting Aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left a protection of these rights, uncertain due to the difficult task of interpreting this language to perfect.

Let's try it a little. And let me know if anyone has any questions on that one. Exactly, good Joseph, perfect, perfect.

Thumbs up the author's initial conclusion, here's an overview of the passage. Okay, which of the most accurately describes authors main purpose in lines 11 to 14 of the passage is honestly probably going to be very similar question, we'll just find an answer that matches, I wish I could predict first but we could probably use our previous prediction here, which is good enough for me.

Go ahead and put your answer in the chat when you can, and put a reason why if you can.

Why did we bring up the main lines 11 through 14, but this decision is placed on provincial courts the enormous burden of interpreting and translating the necessary general constitutional language into specific movements.

A few answers coming in, we'll wait a little bit longer so you can help across this ad OK. Other than this jump and back and forth between the two chances, like that.

Yeah, so it's going to be B to locate the source of systemic problem in protecting Aboriginal rights in Canada.

Really good job everyone. Yeah. Yeah. And then take a look at what Harry's saying, let's take a look at it on C as well to identify the specific source of problems in enacting constitutional reforms in Canada.

This is close. And what they often do as a wrong answer is they get it wrong in the last two or three words.

And so you're already convinced at the beginning and you don't pay it that close of attention by the end.

By the end, they change it up on you and it makes it wrong. Joseph's saying, it seems like it was a trap answer because the problem is not to identify the specific source of problems in enacting.

So far, so good. It's It's exactly what we want. Constitutional, so far so that it reforms in Canada. We're not enacting reforms.

We're enacting reforms via the Constitution. We're enacting new laws. We're enacting new interpretations of the Constitution for the Aboriginals.

We're not reforming the actual Canadian Constitution. And in fact, and even if we grant that we were, which I don't believe we are, there's not problems with the reforms, it's the application of any illegal changes here.

Yeah, really good. Always really, really closely at the end when you're convinced I'm an answer choice. Just to make sure they're not going to change it up.

on the end there, and the answer is going to be B. good job. Let's take a look at this one.

The passage explicitly states that which one of the following was intended as a consequence of the constitutional protection of Aboriginal rights.

Where were those consequences of constitutional protections of Aboriginal rights? was the intent? I think where it's kind of all kind of fitting the main points, we'll just use our same anticipation, but if anyone wants to put in a new anticipation if you can.

Otherwise, put your answer in the chat in a reason why. Whereas I actually thought C was too broad. Yeah, C was going to be too broad and a bit off the marks as well.

If you want to get your right answer, go ahead and put your The why in the chat as well.

It's really important to make sure you can put in the words as best as you can your Russian now.

It'll help you diagnose if you're getting anything right or wrong and why. Improve on the good and kind of fix the bad habits.

You Yeah, let's take a look at C&D, the clarification of which groups comprise the Aboriginal population in Canada. Mora says that's in the first paragraph, let's take a look.

We'll take a look at D.C. and B. in here. Harry's coming in as well. So from line eight, the protection was extended to the Indian Inuit and Metis peoples.

The three groups generally thought to comprise Aboriginal population in Canada. So, although this is a list, list of to whom the protection was extended.

I don't think it's a clarification as in explaining who is and who is not the Aboriginal people. It's just what extended to just three groups.

I don't think there was a clarification. I don't think there was any intent to clarify if people get in or out.

It's just the three groups traditionally thought of. Instead, on line 28, as Joseph saying, line 29, the intent of the constitutional protection is to recognize only longstanding traditional customs, and that's going to match C, not those of recent origin on line 30, and then taking a look at B, that Harry Rodman is well.

It's not quite establishing the Supreme Court itself, even though at the bottom it does say the Supreme Court ideally would interpret this better, it doesn't establish

Solutions Supreme Court explicitly adds the arbitrage as such. Yeah, perfect. So it is C, is it a job? Any questions on that?

If not, we'll go on to number four. The passage provides the most evidence for the claim that the author has a negative attitude toward which of the following.

And let's just go through these one by one on your own and put it in the chat when you think you have it and put a reason why.

What are the author dislike? You You Yeah, mean two people answers here I'll wait a couple one minutes for another answer You

That's right, you Yeah, this one's so tricky. Let's take a look. at c, d, and e here, looking at c, the criterion used to determine which classes are two recent demerit constitutional protection.

Here, I don't think the author likes this. It's not so much, you know, kind of doing that thing again where they turn it around in the last few words, I don't think they mind that the idea is one only protect long standing traditions, but they don't like the fact that it's hard to enforce in the sense of oral traditions.

So looking down in line 36, we see that, however, this requires, permit makes it difficult for Aboriginal societies, which was actually going even back to make it even more clear.

Criterion, we even mentioned we even have the word criterion there at 34. The criterion was defined as prior to the establishment of British sovereignty.

I don't think they have a problem with that. I think they only have a problem that it's hard to apply in the sense of the Aboriginal people.

And then going on to the requirement that Aboriginal people provide documentation for traditional customs. Yeah. It's really tricky. Once again, we're only told that the author thinks it's difficult.

It's only difficult. This one's a little bit better and harder than C once again. only that it's difficult. But then going on to E, we are told as more as pointed out.

Here at the very bottom, the provincial court's ruling was excessively conservative, regrettably, and one hopes for more satisfactory application of the constitutional reforms.

Oh, in fact, actually, yeah, that answered our question that Joseph brought up before. Are these technically constitutional reforms? yeah, they are called constitutional forms in the passage.

So going on back to question number 21, answer choice C, there's not a problem in enacting constitutional reforms. The only problem is then in applying the constitutional reforms in C.

Oh, that's a tricky one. not sure I would have got that one right. If I'd noticed, luckily I didn't notice the very last two words, the passage of constitutional reforms.

But yeah, it is going to be the definition of, I'm sorry, uh, yeah. The definition of ownership that is the idea that they don't like so we're not going to have time to finish this passage This is practice test 45 Passage for go ahead and finish questions 24 25 26 27 on your own And then go on to the homework if you're curious about it But yes, let me know if anyone has any questions otherwise, thank you so much everyone for your time really really good discussion really really tricky answer to us on a couple of these and Yeah, have a good rest of your day.

Thanks everyone and Happy studying