Correcting the Record Meta-Structure (Beginner) with Andrea

Amazing, hi. All right. Oh, have two people. Okay, cool. Awesome. All right, guys. You're the only people in office there tonight.

It looks like we might get a few more. Oh, wow. Okay, we definitely have some more. Awesome. Okay, yeah, I was wondering, what do I do if no one shows up?

But we've got some people. Awesome. So yeah, it looks like it's probably not going to be too many of you tonight, which will be good for you because you'll basically have me as a resource.

You're welcome to ask questions. And yeah, honestly, I would say treat it almost even like a tutoring session, right?

A bit of a group tutoring session, albeit, but yeah, there aren't too many people here. So you guys don't have to worry too much about sharing my attention.

I am all yours for the next hour. All right, so let me get our passage pulled up. Bye. Yeah, for those of you who don't know me, my name is Andrea.

I'm a tutor at the company, tutor for the company for a long time. Prior to going to law school, went to law school, and just got back.

So you probably haven't seen me in office hours for a bit, but I am back in here today. So, all right, today we are doing correcting the record meta structures, which are basically um, they're basically the concept behind the meta structure of correcting the record.

It's sort of when you basically tell somebody they're wrong, right? kind of highlight or showcase the misconception of some kind, and you try to correct an assumption about something, or maybe not even assumption, but just misunderstanding about something.

Um, hi, Ragu. saw you last time. Good to see you again, but okay, I am getting notification from Zoom that I am monologuing, and I'm happy to

Continue modeling, but if anyone has any questions, they're you're welcome to throw in the chat also guys. Yeah, you have me for the next hour and it looks like there's no one else here.

So if there's anything you guys want to focus on in particular, feel free to throw it on my radar and I'm happy to do it.

Obviously, I have a passage geared up for you. But if we want to, you know, if there's something that you think would be most valuable to you, please let me know.

And I'm happy to work that in. But otherwise, let's get going here. So in our last minute here, just to see if anyone else pops up while I pull up the passage.

I'll get that going. But again, if there's anything you guys want to hone in on, feel free to drop it in the chat.

What we'll probably do is we'll spend a good amount of time reading the passage. Really, I think I mentioned this last time I've heard this before.

But when it comes to RC, it's really, I read down to the two skill sets. There's a skill set that you need to read the passage.

passage and to really figure out how you're supposed to be reading it to get to the right answers and there's a separate skills up for dealing with the questions and difficulty of the answer choices and all that.

So usually in office hours spend a lot of time reading the passage because it's kind of hard to have the answer choice conversation if you haven't done that.

But if anyone has any firm thoughts on what they'd like to focus on please let me know. Otherwise I'll probably spend a good amount of time reading the package the passage and showing you guys how to actually approach that process.

But I'm pulling this up now. me just quickly confirm what test this is in. Today we are going to prep test 71.

So 71 and it's going be you Okay, nice to argue and we're just helpful to you. I'm not sure what the.

Just because I did those in 2021 when I left for law school.

Okay, awesome. No, I'm so glad to hear that. And then did you want to focus on that today as well or.

Totally. Yeah. No, happy to do that. Look at that. We have pretty bare bones office hours here. So by all means, feel free to participate and make the list of it.

I also realize I accidentally pull this into a logical reasoning section. So let me try that again, get us to our section here.

All right. Here we are. Okay. Cool. All right. I will share my screen now. All right, and you guys can see everything all right, I'm imagining that's pulled up all right.

Let me know if not. But okay. All right. So I guess we'll just kick off and start reading this, keeping our infrastructure in mind here.

Also, if anyone wants to participate and read themselves, you're welcome to do that. But yeah, I'll take off first paragraph for sure.

So. So, in certain fields of human endeavor, such as music, chess, and some athletic activities, just kind of flagging this here, when it comes to this phrasing, we don't normally speak like that, right?

So whenever you see such as, it's an example, I think we mentioned examples last time, Ragu. It's an example that's terribly long, but if you ever confuse what they mean by that, look at this for guidance.

These two are usually redundant concepts when you see examples, right? So, Joseph, if you weren't, I don't think you were in our office last time, so flagging that for you there.

Examples are, if you have a hard time understanding what something says, look at the example, and if you have a hard time understanding an example, look at what the sentence says that introduces it.

Okay, so in certain fields of human endeavor, such as music, chess, and some athletic activities, the performance, the best practitioners, it's so outstanding, so superior.

flagging, just how the LSAT loves to be redundant. The LSAT loves to say things, say the exact same thing 10 times over in order to slow us

down to kind of bog us down with extra words, and to make us think we're bringing in new ideas, and really we're often referencing old ideas, so that it's just like the use of constants andonyms stacked together.

The performance of the practitioners is so outstanding, so superior. Even to the performance of other highly experienced individuals in the field, that some people believe some notion of innate talent must be invoked to account for the highest level of performance.

What I like to do when I'm kind of dealing with a long sentence like this is I try to just basically pare it down in my head to its sort of bare bones.

were they getting at here? What they're basically saying is sometimes people are so good at something that people think it's talent they're born with.

Certain psychologists have supported this view with data concerning the performance of prodigies and apparent and the apparent herald ability of relevant traits.

Okay, so psychologists are agreeing with this. Not all of them, but certain ones. We've not gotten our authors' opinion on this particular point of view yet.

So I'm going turn the flagging point of view, some of what we did last time. We have basically not a very strong author yet.

We're really just told, we're being told about other people's views with some bad writing. So some people believe this.

Now also, I like to the word believe. This is a flaw on logical reasoning at perception versus reality. There's a difference between what is and a difference what people think know or believe to be the case, right?

Just because you believe in aliens doesn't mean aliens are real. And just because aliens are aren't real doesn't mean that people do or don't believe in them, right?

So you can't, that's a standard flaw that you'll see in logical reasoning all the time. The words that indicate it are thinks, knows, and believes.

Occasionally you'll see the word says, so, and that's the letter that with an individual's name, right? say like Bobby says or something like that.

Here we have where beliefs is a pretty standard representation of what that looks like. I like to note that because of that disparity.

And also, when you consider what this meta structure is, correcting the record or correcting a misconception, as I said, probably somebody's belief is going to be incorrect.

So you kind of use that to, I guess, almost predict, right? Whenever you mention whatever you see belief on the LSAT, it's usually a red flag, they're probably wrong.

The LSAT typically likes to say that. Whenever they say belief, people just, yeah, it's not necessarily the case. It's not always that way.

But usually the LSAT is going to the effort of the word believes or things. They're usually going to try to make you to lead you down the path that says and correct that belief.

Okay, so, and again, that's also true biological reasoning. But seeing it here, and then it's unreading on my head, Jim.

Oh, so let me just pull my chat so I don't miss anything. If anything comes up there. All right, so certain psychologists have supported this view with data concerning the performance of prodigies and the apparent petitability of relevant traits.

So, okay, and some, what that's basically saying is some psychologists point to prodigies and how you can inherit certain traits.

They have noted, for example, another example, we see this all the time, I'll put that in orange because it's structural thing.

The most outstanding musicians are discovered by the age of six and they have found evidence, they have noted this and they have noted this.

That's some of the qualities necessary for exceptional athletic performance, including superior motor coordination, speed of reflexes, and hand-eye coordination, I swear these are all basically the same thing, not quite, but close enough, can be inborn.

All right, until recently, however, all right, we're noticing a shift, whenever you see the word, however, it's like seeing the word, but those tend to cause some sort of pivot.

I'm debating Regu structurally if I want to put this in pink. If I'm being totally honest, if I was going through this myself timed, I probably would have already changed up colors.

So the trick you think about the color strategy is that you almost make your own system a little bit, because you never know what passage you're going to get, right?

You never know what's coming next, and you got to try your best to predict it based on what you've read behind and build a system around that prediction.

I'm like, OK, it seems to have another point of view, but it also seems like these two people have the same point of view.

So now I'm using a different color because I feel like we're going towards a different point of view. So in the last one, we highlighted a bunch of different points of view.

And this one, I'm actually going to use the same highlight for two points of view and a different one for this shift because we're getting a compare contrast potentially for being set up for that.

And I want that compare contrast to be more visible. So I want to use disparate colors because these two, though they are two different points of view, they are the same.

Two people with the same opinion, if that makes sense. All right, OK, recently, I went off like temporal elements.

Joseph, we talked about this last time. But whenever you see time periods on the outside, that's something to know also because of the logical reasoning.

can't draw conclusions about one period in time based on evidence from another period in time. So I like to flag those elements.

Also, where the end in LY typically are not in the, I guess, not quite here, but in general. Advers, adhesives, typically indicative of authors' All right.

Until recently, however, little systematic research was done on the topic of superior performance and previous estimates of the reliability of traits relevant to performance were based almost exclusively on random samples of the general population rather than on studies of highly trained superior performers as compared to the general population.

Okay. Basically, so now our author is saying the science behind this was kind of shoddy. They're not seemingly having an opinion on that yet, other than the fact that they're pointing out that there was shoddy science here.

You could kind of infer that there was some opinion here in the use of the word, however, because he's using that as a but, right?

He's not saying, and this was, and by the way, they were shoddy research, but I don't care. He's saying, however, as sort of a contradictory variable.

it's actually our authors choosing to say something that contradicts what these other other opinions had. So odds are, we're going to get an author that probably disagrees with those other opinions, which again, would make sense of this meta structure correcting the record.

But I don't want to. The thing is, with the meta structure, you don't know what it is until after you finish reading the passage.

We know what it was because that was today thought subject of today's office hour. But if you were actually reading this, and actually you would know what it was, it was at the end that you would kind of infer that.

So I guess what you want to be fighting is taking yourself. Oh, the author's kind of contradicting these other opinions, which by the end of the passage, you can maybe think to yourself, oh, maybe that's correcting the record, right?

But yeah, okay. Hopefully that allows you to see what that would look like if it was happening. Okay. So, recent research in different domains of excellence.

Okay. So now we're just doing research in a slightly different area as opposed to the same area that like maybe isn't a great way.

you know, in theory, you're now, you're going to bring evidence from a slightly different category, which I This is maybe here, they're saying the last one was on the general population, which they didn't really like.

So maybe the desire is going to be more specific or different. We'll see what it is. It's either a more precise thing, or it's a disparate version.

Okay. Recent research in different domains that suggest that exceptional performance, and also it suggests that it's not proving it.

So that's something I'm going to flag here as well. I'm probably going to put this orange and orange as well, or goo.

I didn't initially think to put it in orange, but as soon as I underlined different with the underline and as soon as I underline suggest, it occurred to me, oh, wait, this is a structural shift, I might want to use orange.

Something else to note is sometimes what I do is when something feels major to me, I use a bolder color.

And when something feels less major to me, I use a less bold thing, like I'll use the underline. So I usually actually work my way.

This is least noticeable or at least visible to most visible. I guess it's just my eyes. I think if yellow is being less striking to me than the pink or the orange.

So I kind of treat the colors in order of like dominance and importance. So things that are going to really affect the passage, go into orange, things that are like strongly affecting the passage, maybe not quite as much or the more about tone or connotation of structure, pink, little things like perception versus reality, stuff like that or like strong words like all or none or some.

I would usually do quantifiers, things that are more like isolated and not as long yellow underline for like, OK, I want to flag it and may or may not be important.

So you can think of using, you can think of designing a color system potentially around that. I think I never thought about how I did my color system until you kind of asked me.

I mean, I've sort of thought about it, but now I'm thinking about it a lot more because I know you're wondering how to do the color system and that is I think kind of the underlying idea.

So as I use the underline for these two different words, then in college, I kind of like took a bird's eye view and was like, wait, this is a structural thing.

These two minor things are now actually showing me one big thing, think of it like that, if that helps.

Also we have a new person, you're hopefully impenouncing your name right, hello, welcome to office hours. I'm just going to quickly add here that there aren't too many of here today, so feel welcome to chime in and participate as much as you'd like, make the most of it, basically a free hour of tutoring, so definitely feel free to use me as a resource.

Hi. Yeah, feel welcome to participate in the chat, you can also like speak up if you want to say something, we're doing correcting the record meta structures, and we're just about halfway through the passage here.

If you want to pull it up on your own to catch up, it's prep test. Let me just confirm in my notes before I give you the wrong test.

Prep test 71, passage three, so I'll have that in the chat actually. for everyone. All right, all right. The recent research in different domains of excellence suggests, and they're saying that after they're contradicting or at least qualifying what all these studies up here were good for.

And also, again, I want to know that this is a slightly temporal element research, right? So whatever this was, this is like an old view, and this is like a new view, right?

Because notice how they're qualifying this as being like recent, right? So there's a temporal element to that before and after sense.

So that would give us some overlap with old and new meta structures or old approach, new approach, if will, which I believe I'm doing office hours on Tuesday.

for that particular amount of structure. All right, jump in back to this. Recent research and different domains of excellence suggest that exceptional performance arises predominantly from acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations rather than permanent abilities.

All right, so this is directly contradicting what the critic said above. Rather than permanent abilities, so it's coming from, I love the word rather.

Rather is a really important structural world. It's basically saying not this, but that, right? So from, I'm actually gonna put this because I already have it in orange.

I'm gonna throw the little yellow this so just an extra highlight. Emphasize that structure. If I'm thinking big picture, Regu, I'm gonna wanna be able to see the flow of how that changes.

And just sort of like, buy like all myself back from ice cream and I'm like. taking it all in at once.

This almost like maps it for me a little bit clearly. I don't so it basically like flags. What words do I want to like really read if I'm skimming?

So it can be helpful for skimming. That's basically what the highlights are for. It's like you to like see your map of everything all at once.

Kind of like taking your own notes, being able to zoom in and out of them. And just to catch you up at a useful way of saying that wrong, think I've said it differently each time.

We are focusing in here on like techniques for highlighting and stuff like that, where Goo was on our last office hours and we started talking about that.

He made some really awesome note taking notes on our last passage, which were actually really great. But we talked about potentially not not taking and doing highlighting instead.

So we're focusing in on that a little bit today. If you have any specific questions about that, feel free to ask.

But if you have anything else you want to focus in on that, whatever that may be, feel free to let me know and I'm happy to touch on that as well.

no worries. Okay. So, for example, another structural variable, I like that. So, okay, Ragu, your point to highlighting what I don't love here.

This is a structural, it's kind of a structural pivot, but it's like, so the thing is now we know whatever sentence follows this, okay, cool, I'm glad to see that.

Yeah, I do think it's a little bit faster and I think it can be more accurate. It's probably about the same amount of time it took you to do those notes and you're basically doing the same thing you're highlighting when you were doing your paragraphs, we're just rewriting it and it might just, yeah, so.

But the way that you honestly did your notes is exactly kind of how I would highlight. It's just finding a system that works through that to kind of color code it, but okay, here where we're at, something I want to flag.

For example, we sort of talked about this before, how examples are redundant, right? So we know whatever comes down here is going to be an example of this statement.

However, I want to flag the fact that that example exists. I wanted to highlight that example as being a structural thing.

It doesn't really work. work because it's coming right after an orange structural shift. So what happens if have two different structural components that you want to highlight, but they come right back to back to each other and you're stuck using the same color.

It's almost as if you don't, if you're like skimming it in birds-eye viewing it, you might not realize that those are two different things because they're back to back the same color.

That's when I like to shift colors. So I'm actually going to do yellow here. It's possible something else that I might have done just as readily is done no color and just done for example, but I really wanted to stick out for me because I know that this is an example of this orange thing.

So I'm going to use, I'm going do like that. All right. For example, it has been found. I also note here how it says it has been found.

When I talk about perception versus reality, this is what reality looks like. Usually the word reality just is the word is, right?

Or like verb forms is was has been. Perception is, where do we flag belief? It would have been something I underlined.

Mind that would guess, right? Maybe on underlined it. Oh, my gosh, where did it go? Oh, I thought I saw it.

Oh, here. is my game. Apparently my adding technique isn't that great if I can't find it now. Let's see.

Oh, duh, it's literally right there. OK, yeah, don't even know why I missed that one. was right in front of me.

You know what? Actually, here I can tell you why I missed it. And this has to do with the highlighting technique.

I think what I wanted to see was that. I think I would have grabbed it immediately if I'd had the underlined under it.

I think what I mentioned earlier is I like to use the underlines for little things that are like quantifiers, right?

Like all, most, some, or like. Words that flag certain types of laws like thinks nor believes or Princess if you're doing a comparative or relative versus absolute flaw, right?

So what that flaw will look like is You know, I can't say that Just because I'm better at gymnastics than I Don't know Oprah whimpering someone random doesn't mean that I'm good at gymnastics, right?

So that's a comparative versus absolute law if you're familiar with that for logical reasoning the key words that are Indicative of those and an ER or they're like better worse Less more, right?

Just because I'm more efficient at X doesn't mean I'm efficient, right? So I use the underlying to basically flag words that I can immediately I Immediately resonate with a particular like LSAT specific concept And this is a very LSAT specific concept that usage up this word like I'll I teach in my lr

tutoring sessions all the time. So I didn't see it because it was in only yellow. And I think I wasn't expecting.

Notice how I put like temporal with the underlines, right? So something to flag in your technique. Sometimes you might need to double highlight.

What I wish I would have done, the reason I put it in yellow was because it was some people's belief.

And I wanted to basically highlight who had this opinion, this group of people. But I also want to, so it's two things, right?

It's the belief in the sense that it's their opinion, but it's also the belief as in it's the kind of like thing that they also like to test as a perception versus reality concept.

So I really should have highlighted it as both. And then I think I would have seen it faster, if that makes sense.

Notice like here I did it with, for example, like to just sometimes double flag things if they kind of meet my.

narrative. Yeah, here I did it as well. And I was debating, and that's why I didn't use orange was because it would have flown exactly, but I kept the underline and I just put in a different color.

So it's hard to get a perfect system, but watch out for stuff that means more than one thing. So also, you'll see it's a lot in author's attitude.

You have strong author's attitude, but the author's attitude, for instance, maybe also as a temporal element to it, right?

or something more deliberate that refers to another kind of concept from another way, you might want to just somehow double emphasize it.

Okay, hopefully that wasn't too much of a side tangent, but yeah, I'll just show that sometimes the duality of that underline feature, which you can't do with the colors, can be really helpful.

Because yeah, you can't more than one color in the highlight. You can break up a sentence, but I can't put purple and orange in the same spot.

You can do that with the underline. All right, for example, it has been found that the most accomplished athletes show a systematic advantage in reality.

action time. And like, if this was logical reasoning, like, that's the kind of word that I'd want to put under there, right?

Because again, quantifiers, right? But this isn't logical reason. I'm not going to worry about that in the sentence. It's not a conditional sentence.

So, for example, it has been found. That's typically what reality looks like versus so someone believes something. Some people believe here is what it actually is.

That's what the juxtaposition of perception versus reality looks like if you were wondering when I was talking about that.

Okay, sorry. Long tangent. hopefully, those side things are helpful. You can take them into logical reasoning. They'll be super helpful.

they show up across the whole exam as we're seeing them here in RC. It has been found that the most accomplished athletes show a systematic advantage in reaction time or perceptual discrimination.

Only, ah, well, the word only. That's our conditional logic that I'm going to flag. They'll probably test that. When you see it in RC, they usually test it.

So I'm going to actually put my little underline there. Actually, I probably wouldn't use the underline in this case because it's not otherwise highlighted by another color.

But no, let's just get in there. Only in their particular fields, OK, advantage in reaction time or perceptual discrimination, only in particular fields of performance, only in their particular fields, not in general laboratory tests for these factors.

So they're only showing them these specific contexts. Similarly, that's like a structural sort of pivot. I'm actually not going to put it in orange though, Regu, because they're going off of the same example.

So now I wanted to almost match my example and I want to be able to see here was our main structural shift and here are the like supporting variables for it.

So even though it's a, so the structure becomes apparent as you read more, right, and you almost have to kind of change your stitch.

So I'm going to adapt to it as you go along, which is annoying and makes highlighting. Not perfect, but I do think it's still if you can kind of like play the game with it, it's I'll give you an example when I'm actually like taking an LSAT I'll often like start with one highlighting system and as the passage evolved into something I didn't expect I like slowly kind of like morph into another one Um, and that's just part of the process But because you saw that happening and you experienced that passage becoming something you didn't expect You were actually like decently good at remembering how the old highlighting system shifted to the new one And just the fact that you had that experience almost compensates for the fact that you didn't highlight it all perfectly because you sort of Don't forget the fact that you were Met with something unexpected.

So yeah, if that makes sense, it doesn't end up hurting that much at the end if you're not consistent with um, all right I Only think it's performance not actually gonna take Not in more general level

to test for these factors. Now I'm going to put the word similarly there before I didn't even really notice a knot.

But now I'm thinking, okay, that's those two are both kind of like sub points. So now I'm going to put similarly an orange, that's me changing my system as I go.

But before I hadn't read the word, like, or at least I hadn't thought to emphasize the word not. So, you know, I would have just had the word similarly in whatever and it still would have been there and I still would have known to look there.

I just would have had to have read a little bit more. Now I've just, you know, it's one phrase that lasts that I have to read.

It's you still would have been okay if you hadn't done that, if that makes sense, because you would have still had this one flagged in theory, or even you just would have known to go back to this example, right?

So the more you can kind of like show the pivots, the more nuanced your graph of the passages, which can be helpful for going quicker and quicker.

But it's not like you're weeding through a whole bunch of fluff and all you had was the example highlighted, right?

just going to, yeah, you have to go back and read the whole example. in theory, you'll know that what you're looking for.

Or is there? So it might shave off a small amount of time, but it's only like in total, you probably shave off like two minutes on the whole section.

So don't worry. You should be good to go either way. OK, so similarly, for your chess players have exceptional memory for configurations of chess pieces.

But only if, love conditional logic, I shouldn't take the word but and give it a little bit of a different notion there.

It's actually a pivot, right? Because we're going, here's the same, but this exception and the conditional logic only if.

These configurations are typical of chess games. So they're basically saying in both of these, this is a very long-winded way of saying research suggests that it's more about acquired skill and.

adaptation rather than These innate abilities I normally wouldn't go to the effort to do this in the passage But I'm just want to show you guys if you can trim the fat by taking out these adjectives mentally it's about skills and adaptations Rather than like innate abilities.

It's the word innate here that counts But you don't even have to like really read the adjective. You know that it's there what they're testing is the meaning of the concepts and you want to know like Colonel sentences so Yeah, this is very much turned into an office hours about like how to highlight and how to like trim the fluff But something to note here is in reading comprehension if you really want to get to the core of what they're saying If you just think of grammar We have so many ways of modifying sentence That's what these are doing, right?

They're all really long sentences with loads of stuff going on and then we talked about the redundancy that they use right out

I know outstanding, so superior, these are all just sentences that have a whole lot of modifying phrases and modifying words shoved into them beyond what would fit for a normal person's need to read something clearly, right?

So if you just go subject, verb, object, you can just like, pair the sentence down to its very core, the verb is usually the core, you can find the main verb in a sentence, find subject that it's attached to, find the direct object that ends it, and that can help a lot for being able to understand the meaning of the passage.

Mentally, you just trim away all these adjectives, like, the core of what they're getting at is this. If you do that, if you took every single sentence here and you cut all the, if you trimmed all the fat, you would have like a perfect map of the passage, if you just took like, or at least a near perfect map, you just took out all the fluff.

But the thing about the fluff is it's not always concentrated, it's not like a whole sentence, it's a lot.

You know, the sentence has some value, but like the core value, value, to the sentence that are important, have been like separated from each other by like additional modifying words and phrases.

So try to mentally remove those modifying words and phrases and just try to follow that verb, that subject, that like core direct object.

Hopefully that helps. That's actually, though that piece of advice was buried in a bunch of other stuff that maybe didn't make a ton of sense, that is actually probably one of my number one most valuable tips for reading comprehension.

If you want to know what a sentence says, focus on the verb, what is a subject of that verb, what is the object of that verb, and that can do so much for you.

Another way of thinking of it is reading comprehension. Honestly, it's not about how good of a reader you are.

I think in many ways it's how good of a writer you are. If you know how to write something, if you know how to write a good sentence, it becomes apparent how these are bad sentences, and it becomes very clear what parts of the sentences are important.

Because if you think about it, if you were writing this yourself, how would you have written that idea, right?

That will be the part of the sentence that you want to latch on to, and the rest of it is fluff.

So try thinking of it that way. If I was writing this, yes. So, okay, but only if these configurations are difficult check games.

This is conditional logic. usually test that. You can get inference questions from this all the time, almost always you do.

So some passages have a lot of conditional logic in them. And I can actually, if you want, regular at the end or mind me to throw it in the chat, I can think of a couple passages off the top of my head.

I can send them in there for homework for you if you want. But conditional logic, shows up a lot in logical reasoning, obviously.

They test it for inferences, right? So if I say, for instance, all cats are mammals, you can then also infer that some cats are also mammals by virtue of all cats being mammals, right?

Sort of like a deduction, if you will, a lot of because they get inference questions from that. Obviously, the example I gave you by cats and mammals is super obvious, but you're going to get a really similar thing happen in the questions.

So that's why I like that. Because they often ask that. And when I get to the question stem, that probably will test me on that.

I don't know if sure I haven't looked at the questions on this yet, but when it probably does happen, I know exactly where to look.

It's in my map, if you will.

And this is actually an inference. You're right that there is nothing called an untypical configuration of a chess game.

But think about what that means logically. If you have a game of chess, and you have a, I don't know, whole bunch of little players, right?

Yes, exactly, Joseph. You've answered it correctly. Right. If took my rook, right? That's the one that goes straight, the little tower.

If I took my rook and made it go in a diamond shape, that's like an untypical configuration. Or even just like places on the board, right?

So there are, yeah, exactly. great job. Thank you for jumping in Joseph. Really good job. Also, please let me know.

I know I'm throwing a lot of information at you guys. If it's not super helpful, I swear I won't be offended.

Feel free to throw it at me. I'm kind of focusing it on this high I think I think a lot.

And if I've gone too deep, please, like I said, feel free to let me know. But yeah, conditional logic that usually tested, I like to flag it.

OK, let's keep going here. And I'm going to try to get through the rest of this very quick so you can jump into our questions.

But that is actually, it's worth noting, rugged, that that's an inference that they're probably going to test. Exactly what you just said, Joseph, might very well be the right answer to a question.

I would guess it probably is because of the fact that they use conditional logic there. So in the highlighting, what I'm actually really focusing on, I'm flagging with the yellow and the underline are things that are concepts that I know the else that loves to test.

It's obviously I've been doing this a long time, so I'm pretty familiar with what those concepts are, which is when I'm kind of stopping to teach them to you guys whenever I talk about temporal elements of resumption versus reality or conditional logic.

That's me telling you guys, you ever see that flag it, the else I love to test it. That's why I stop and say that.

Okay. The vast majority of exceptional adult performers were not exceptional as children, but started instruction early and improved their performance through sustained high level training.

So this is basically the concluding what they've shown us here, right? That exceptional performance has arrived predominantly from acquired complex skills and physiological adaptations.

They're talking about acquired skills rather than innate abilities. So if something is innate, you would expect them to have it when they were young, right?

they were born like children, because it's innate, right? I'm double-jointed in my elbow. That's innate. I was double-jointed when I was three years old and I'm double-jointed now.

So that's kind of what they're saying here. They're basically trying to paraphrase what they said here. it's incredible, right?

Then you would have it as a kid. And they're pointing out they weren't that good as kids as evidence of the fact that it's all about complex skill, skill building and adaptations.

But they started instruction early and they improved. So basically, this is like hard word hard. Summarize where this passage is getting in like one phrase hard work Trump's talent is basically their point and sustained high level training only extremely rarely.

So they're saying it maybe does happen very, very frequently is that same performance achieved without at least 10 years of intensive deliberate practice.

Okay, so basically this is just further proving their point. They're basically saying almost never can you make a high level without 10 years of practice, right?

With such intensive training, chess players who may not have superior innate capacities can acquire skills that circumvent basic limits on such

factors as memory and the ability to process information. They're saying memory and the ability to process information here because they want you to infer that that is the type of skill, the complex skill that you need in chess.

That's the common knowledge that the outside will expect you to rely on, that chess players don't need like strong legs or something, they need like memory and quick thinking.

Recent research, more of this recent research, love that, and we're also seeing a bit of a pivot here. Recent research shows, so it sounds like this is another example, right?

So it's kind of continuing at the same point. Unless they contradict it, but so far, it's the same recent that we saw up here.

Now see now, see how now my underlining is helping me, the same recent that we saw here and here, because they're all temporal, I very quickly was like, okay, I'm skimming for temporal, there we go.

So likely it's not going to shift opinions, it still could, but Agar, it won't, because... the temporal element is sort of giving us a before and after opinion.

It's probably going to be in line with the one we just read. Recent research shows that with the clear exception of some traits such as height, I'm going to flag this clear exception.

They're qualifying this, which is high at surprisingly large amount of anatomical characteristics, including aerobic capacity and the percentage of muscle fibers.

We can infer if you don't know what the word anatomical means that it has to do with this is like describing what it is, right bodily things, show specific changes that develop from extended intense training.

So the clear question that some traits that just high with the accepting those, a lot of anatomical characteristics. Yeah, so basically they're saying a lot of your bodily stuff actually changes from training.

Which makes sense, for a chess player it would be their memory and stop getting better. the brain is getting sharper and sharper and sharper.

let me tell you guys, after I studied for the LSAP for nine months, let me tell you, felt dumb when I started, but when I ended I actually felt smart.

So it's like I didn't do well in the LSAP because I was smart, I became smart because I trained starting for the LSAP, right?

So that's something to look for on the other side of the stuff, starting for the LSAP will make you smarter.

And this passage is evidence of that. But anyway, okay, so the evidence does not therefore support the claim. then we have a structural thing here, we definitely have lots of conclusion.

Honestly, he's been concluding the same point over and over, so lots of redundancy as well. But now he's finally just saying the word therefore, this is not really a massive shift from the point that he's making.

He's already basically told us he's shown us. by example, that the evidence does not support this other claim these critics had, is probably what he's about to say.

The evidence does not, therefore, support the claim that a notion of an eight-talent must be invoked in order to account for the difference between good and outstanding performance.

This was the other person's claim. So this is where I'm going to double hide it in, because it's a structural move, but also that claim, the notion of an eight-talent, is the same thing that we saw up here in eight abilities, So this is their opinion.

Jeff's supposing two positions here. Okay, tell us why. The word sense is a conditional logic indicator. I usually use sense for premises and logical reasoning, which is why I jumped for the pink.

But yeah, I think, actually, in theory, yeah, I'm going jump with the pink because it's right? Since, therefore, anyone who tutors with me knows that I love orange her conclusions and paper premises.

I already have that in orange. I wish I could double it in orange. I can't, so I'll just put it up.

the non-drawal line. Um, Actually, it's fine that way. Uh, since it suggests, and so why are they, um, why does this not support it?

Because it suggests instead that extended intense training together with that level of talent, um, common to all reasonably competent performers, okay?

They're basically saying baseline talent plus extended training equals its accounting for the difference that you see between these super talented people and just regular people.

So you actually don't need to be born with it. Um, you can just study hard, practice hard. Um, me tell you guys, this is so true for the LSAT.

Um, it's the truest thing I've actually, yeah, super true. So since sustained intense training usually depends on an appropriate level of interest and desire, and yeah, that's for sure.

That's what... That's the hardest part of the LSAT guys, an appropriate level of interest and desire. That's the only thing keeping you away from a 180.

Let me tell you, it's hard to muster it, but once you do, you really can get there. And since those who eventually become superior performers more often show early signs of exceptional interest and early evidence of unusual ability, more so than, so this is a structural shift here, and essentially comes superior performers, more often show this rather than, we're not saying word rather, but I'm going flag it as a structural move because it's kind of a juxtaposition there.

More often show X instead of Y. Motivational factors are more likely to be effective predictors of superior performance than is a take innate talent to their kind of conclusion here is that one over the other, more likely

or in other words, the same type of rather than juxtaposition is what we have here. One is more likely to do something than the other.

Notice the word than isn't it every single time, right? Than you see it up here, than, right? So the word than gives it away.

It kind of shows this instead or more than or less than this versus this. It sets up a comparison of something basically being different or somehow beating out something else.

All right, so that's where we're at, guys. We can just jump right into our questions. But I also want to just stop here and ask if anyone has any questions with our last few minutes about reading the passage, how to read the passage, what to flag, what to take note of.

We can also all predict together if you want offer your presentation. directions about the main point, you're welcome to do that, but basically what we're getting here for main point is an author feels much like I do very strongly that it's not about the talent you're born with, it's about how much, it's about your work ethic, right?

And how you can actually change your brain or your muscles or whatever it is in order to become at a high level, it's something that actually changes your bodily chemistry which is what the author is saying here, and the new research proves that in a way that evidently some older research didn't.

So do we all feel okay about that main point? Hopefully yes. Okay, cool. Well, if we have no further questions, we can just jump right in.

All right, so main point, something to note for this question type, when they say the main point they do not want to know what the passage was about, they want to know why the author wrote it.

So, to give you an example, a lot of time students will pick any choices that are are very encompassing of the topic.

This interest is not summarized the topic. The topic of this is, I don't know, be some extra choice about skill and talent.

The main point, however, why the author wrote it, is basically so say, hey, there was this opinion about talent being something you were born with, and then we got new recent research, right, recent research.

I think we also had another word on the other recent down here that I didn't highlight, we didn't. The recent research says otherwise.

So, our point is that this old view wasn't correct, and it actually doesn't take talent, you can just work hard and get to the same result.

So, we want to look for any choice that says that. Why the author wrote it to basically show that this old view is wrong, and the new research proved it.

And so it's kind of two parts. I would say in one part, the old view is wrong. But in another part, it's kind of the conclude that it's about working hard and not about talent.

So I'm looking for an actually that kind of would say encapsulates those ideas, right? So let's take a look at what we have here.

Research has recently found that many in foreign trades, including a surprising number of physical characteristics and motivational factors. So research has recently found that many inborn trades.

So these are the ones that people are born with, including a surprising number of physical characteristics and what manufacturers can be altered through training and practice.

That's true, but that's not necessarily why the author wrote it. I would say I don't love that for characterizing with what the author found out.

important here though that is like kind of what they're getting at in this passage. It's not really telling us why the author did this.

So I'm going to go ahead and let that one be. It's a good example of the what versus the why.

was saying careful not to choose a what and choose why the author wrote it. That's just telling us that is true.

The author would probably vibe with that. That's not why they wrote this passage. They wrote this passage similar that same motivation and that same fervor that I had telling you guys really seriously guys and someone who didn't know what they were doing and all of a sudden and now teaching you it's all about hard work.

So right it's like that's like the reasoning. That's the why they're saying what they're saying. The why the main point is the authors like opinion more than it is what they're talking about.

And obviously they'll have evidence to justify that opinion and that opinion will seem like it's the what that matters but more so it's the why.

Okay recent research into the origins of superior performance gives evidence. that in sport, music, and other fields of activity, anyone can achieve exceptional level of performance with sustained intent, with sustained intent, practice, and training.

Okay, again, that's also true, or, well, sort of. mean, that's basically, I'm not exactly true. The author might say comparatively, or sorry, not the author, but you could argue here, that the research isn't saying that anyone can achieve these results.

They did say that you need some baseline level of talent, I believe, right here. No, excuse me, it was up.

I didn't imagine this extremely rarely. I remember it said, combined with, well, didn't didn't know know Together with that level of talent, comment to all reasonably competent performers, they do kind of want to, yeah, thank you so much Joseph, yeah, that was what they wanted there, so we can't quite say that anyone can do this, but I mean that's kind of what they want to get at, but even still, it's not like a terrible answer choice, I honestly don't, I don't hate it.

Is it a little bit off there? Yes, but I think the bigger issue, if you think of reading comprehension, there are, sometimes it can help them think of like a big wrong and a little wrong.

The little wrong is when you have like a word or a phrase that like is a little bit overreaching, so similar to what I use the underlines and the yellow for, sort of like you can pinpoint one little word and like it's off for that, it's off for that, this is like the logical force here is a little strong, but there's also like the bigger question of like, oh, it's kind of not encapsulating the reason why the author wrote it.

Is this true within the universe that the author believes in? Yes, it is like a true fact within the author's universe.

of opinion. But it's not like giving us the overarching big picture. This is why the author wrote it. It's just kind of telling us what the author said, if that makes sense.

So hopefully we get a better answer here so that you guys will be able to sort of see the difference between those things.

Okay, so C. Okay, contrary to previously accepted theories of the development, Okay, contrary to previously accepted theories of the development of expertise, researchers have now shown that innate characteristics are irrelevant.

Okay, that's too strong. To the differences in, if I was actually the I probably wouldn't read any further. I hate the word irrelevant there, but we'll just keep reading to the differences.

That's just super strong, right? The researchers have now shown that the innate characteristics are irrelevant to the differences in performance among individual practitioners in various fields of activity.

Remember they did say like in some cases, in those rare cases, like So it's not totally relevant. All right.

D, recent research involving superior performers in various fields indicate that outstanding performance may result from adaptations due to training, rather than permanent factors.

I like this rather than quite a bit. And they're pointing out that the research is recent, right? So I don't hate that.

I'm going to leave that be. The college previously attributed early, we don't really care. Like, this was not about their opinion.

These are the psychologists from this other perspective that we haven't really spent that much time dwelling on. I'll be surprised if that gets where we need to go.

But psychologists have previously attributed early childhood proficiency in such activities as music and chess to innate talent. OK, they have not revised their theories.

Just the authors disagreeing with them. There has been new evidence, but they haven't changed your mind about it. All right.

So I'm going to get rid of these. We don't like that super strong language. We don't that super strong language.

And I think we had a couple of here where we talked about that, we kind of talked about how this one sort of gets at the main big wrong.

Let's see what the little wrong is here. So researchers have recently found that many in-worn traits, including a surprising number of pairs of motivation factors, can be altered through training practice.

Okay, so this is talking about their in-worn traits, and yeah, so we kind of mentioned this one doesn't actually have a little wrong, it just has a big wrong.

So the little wrongs are things like I said, logical four, it's very easy to cross stuff out based on that.

But the big wrong here in terms of big picture issue with it as opposed to the small picture picture, there's the micro level issue and the macro level issue.

It's not getting on our point, this is again, this is true, right? That you could probably, researchers have recently found that many in-worn traits, let's skip the modifying clause in the middle, can be altered through training and practice.

Yeah, you can alter traits, but that's true, right? told us that basically several times throughout this paragraph, right? But the author wrote that all to say, thus, it's about hard work rather than just talent.

This is evidence of why, like, is evidence of the hard work, if that makes sense, If you've worked hard, you will alter your brain or your body through training and practice.

So that's not why the author wrote it, that's just evidence that the author gave, and this ends up being why the other wrote it.

Okay, all right guys, we are out of time here, but hopefully that helped, Raghu, hopefully that got you some good highlighting, food for thought, like I said, it's not a perfect system, that's actually a really good $1 million question is how to deal with marking up reading comp, and there are so many ways that you can do it.

I think I have an office hour on marking up reading comp, you're probably going to have to go pretty far back in the catalog, I think I did that and I focused on that mostly in my, in the year that the outside went digital, which was not the

Last year that I did my prep before I went to law school, but it was like right in the middle, so you Check out.

Yeah, I was gonna say I would check it out because that was um Uh, yeah, think that office hour was dedicated just to that so um that might be good for you to look At if you're still curious about how to highlight otherwise.

I any last questions before we have off or anyone who's in here? um Just a matter of like Trying to do four part passages in one over one of the 35 minutes I think that will come more with practice and uh do it again again kind of the thing so There's nothing much other than applying some good techniques That we can do I guess Yeah, and I would like I said, I think those past office hours when I did them which probably 2020 or something like that maybe even 2019 um they Would have I would have intentionally chosen passages that Show you different things that are important to flag

So that's why I'm saying go back and read those just because this passage doesn't include everything that I think is worth flagging, obviously, right?

So that office hour will give you, I think, a better example of, like, how to approach that because the passage would just be more chosen for that reason.

Yeah. Okay. All right, guys. I'm going let you go.

No worries. Thank you, too. Appreciate everybody. Thank you for listening and participating, and we'll be have a great rest of your weekend.

you.