Subscription pricing
I hate these questions, they truly are the bane of my existence, and study. I am not sure what I am missing, but I am just not accurate with these questions. How did you guys better understand this question type? what was your technique, and what made them click for you? In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question, but for me, the harder ones just seem impossible without mapping. Also, sometimes mapping is difficult due to my inability to identify which is the sufficient, and which is the necessary condition. With the latter issue, there are no conditional words for guidance. How does one become better at identifying the sufficient/necessary condition without the trigger words being present (aside from just practice of course because once I finish the 7sage course, practice is all I will be doing).
0
17 comments
Hmm, interesting, I must finish the 7sage course so I can drill with this technique.
Diagramming this question may not cost you any time and may even save time, so whatever works. The last sentence ends up being a throw away, and you might be tempted to try to connect it to the 2nd premise if you tried to just intuit the answer. Diagramming might save you from that, because there is a difference between having sophisticated listeners in the audience and what must be true for a person to be a sophisticated listener and making it explicit in symbolic logic might force you to see it. Either way, you should get to the right answer fairly quickly.
@2543.janson35 @2543.hopkins I don't always cry, but when I do, its because 7sagers reveal my lack of skill lmaoo. You guys are pro, thank you. Now let me tell you what I was doing. I would read a statement, stop, and translate it, then move on to the next statement, translate that, and attempt to connect them, and continue this process until I either just hated my life because I could not get the answer, or until I got the answer, usually the latter. Just to clarify, you look for variables that you see will pull out an inference correct? and how about something that is easy to diagram, for example PT30 S2 Q18, do you diagram those or do you guys use the same process as the one you have demonstrated, or is there a different way of handling these?
@2543.hopkins's explanation is really thorough and great, so I'll only add some insight into my thought process for this question that may help you. Personally, I answered this question in 30 seconds, maybe less, and this is how I did it:
I recognized that the question was a MBT, began with most, and had a bunch of some statements throughout, ultimately finishing with a most statement. I know that there are no valid conclusions you can make by combining 2 some statements or a some and a most statement; the only way any sort of inference can be pulled out of here is if the two most statements have the same "sufficient" side variable, which would produce a some statement inference of the two "necessary" side variables (because of the overlap Nicole mentioned above).
From practice, this recognition was almost instantaneous, and it allowed me to focus in on the two most statements directly, largely ignoring everything thing else. From here I simply drew the valid inference and looked to the answer choices, and A is exactly this inference! So I moved on, like this was a LG question.
The point is if you know what you are looking for you can anticipate what form the answers are going to take, which can make the question a whole lot easier. Cutting through all the nonsense and arriving at the right AC quickly. Win-win.
Ok. Let me get my book and do this here real time-ish.
1) Underlined "most"; bracketed "without doing" through "of their own."
2) Underlined "some"; bracketed "rely solely" through "advice."
3) Underlined "Other"; bracketed "do some" through "hunches."
4) Underlined "Only a few"; bracketed "always do" through "before investing."
5) Underlined "majority of ... make a profit"
2-4 are all "some" statements.
1 and 5 are most, of "investors," and thus most/most of the same group (investors) means some investors who do not do any research make a profit.
I zero in on what is going to help me the most. What are the groups, and where do they overlap?
Let's go to the AC's.
A) Well that's the intersection I found above. Keep it and check once I've eliminated the others.
B) No way to get to most from two somes. Eliminate.
C) We know that most people make a profit, but what if these idiots (the "some" of #3) are the outliers? Unsupported due to lack of existential inference. Eliminate.
D) A most from a some (the most/most inference). No way. Eliminate.
E) A most from a most/some. No way. Eliminate.
I've eliminated B-E. A fits my pre-phrase/inference. Let's check it. Nope, I haven't missed anything; a some from a most/most intersection is valid. A it is.
Post-game analysis:
Most people who invest (A) do so without any research on their own (B). Most people who invest (A) make a profit (C). Most A's are B's. Most A's are C's. Some B's are C's. A says some people make a profit (C) don't research (B). In other words, some C's are B's.
So, as I am reading everyone's feedback, which I am thankful for, I see that elimination seems to be a huge aspect of these question types, however it would seem to me that you guys are talking about the questions that do not use conditional logic, which I struggle with a bit, but I know for these questions with drilling I will get better. As for the questions that use conditional logic, for example PT 33 S3 Q8 this question just seems difficult to do 1. without mapping, and 2. with just eliminating the answer choices. If you guys do not mind, can you explain to me your thought process while doing this question? And yes I do realize that another individual's method might not work for me, but this is merely for guidance.
@2543.hopkins :D :D
TRUTH right here! Way to go, @jyang72422 !
@mahdiall408 , I used to struggle with those questions too. But recently this is getting better due to Process of Elimination. You need to eliminate ACs that can't be supported by argument due to exaggeration, out of scope, or opposite. Treat it like mini RC. Don't be confused by some small embellishment among grammar and wording. Or go back to the Trainer and see how Mike Kim eliminates wrong ACs. Good luck!
In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question
Hmm, I don't necessarily think that applies to a lot of question that require you to chain or link up many conditions. Sure, for an argument that's pretty simple, such as If A, then B, we have an A, etc.
Personally, I like to map out my conditions because unless you have a really good intuition, you might get something wrong or make a silly mistake. Plus, mapping out conditions, especially if you're well versed in conditional lawgic, should not take more than a few seconds.
Thank you. All the yes.
Exactly!
Agreed. Nice use of a crutch ... while your ankle was broken, very helpful. You've healed, and now must walk without the crutch.
How did you guys better understand this question type? what was your technique, and what made them click for you? In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question, but for me, the harder ones just seem impossible without mapping.
For what it's worth, I think there are many more MBT questions without conditional logic than there are that involve conditional logic. When I see a conditional heavy question, I don't shy away from diagramming it because it can often lead you to the exact answer and you can just move on (like a LG question);one that specifically comes to mind is the Capulets and Montagues question, though I'm not totally sure if its a MBT type. All this is to say that you shouldn't feel bad about having to diagram some questions, it can be very useful. But you shouldn't have to diagram every question that you see an "if", "only if", or "unless" etc. in, and most of them you should strive for an intuitive understanding. When I started my prep I was diagramming everything I could, but you eventually progress through that with practice.
With MBT questions, you have to maintain a high (read:absolute) standard of proof for the answer choices. For example, if the answers introduce a new variable all of a sudden, it is likely wrong because it wouldn't have the support needed for a MBT. Anything that could be false should be eliminated right away.
How did you guys better understand this question type?
Be extremely aggressive in understanding the grammar and what the stimulus actually says. Nail everything down. Do not walk away with an "ok I guess I get it" understanding.
In on of JY's videos, he claims that for 170+ target scorers there is not enough time to conditionally map out the question
I only very, very rarely map these out. The key is in knowing what the stimulus is really, truly saying: reading closely for precise meaning.
Also, sometimes mapping is difficult due to my inability to identify which is the sufficient, and which is the necessary condition.
Yeah ... I think mapping for many MBT is ultimately a crutch. Perhaps a useful crutch. But perhaps practicing with your crutch is not getting you to the point of really, truly understanding the text at hand.
How does one become better at identifying the sufficient/necessary condition without the trigger words being present
Relax :) And read.
@mahdiall408 I truly think im missing something because its tough to pick out the wrong AC's
@974 Unfortunately, trying to make every argument conditional is not my problem. I realize that some arguments are not conditional, but some are and those are the ones I struggle with. I also am familiar with validity, and invalidity, but will go over the lesson in case I missed something. I use POE, but it's tough to parce out the AC's when it comes to tough MBT with subtle changes in the AC's. What is your approach to MBT?
First of all, I think you're conflating MBT with conditional logic. You could absolutely have a MBT without conditional logic, so if you're trying to map out an argument that doesn't use conditional logic, you're just going to be spinning your wheels. Furthermore, lawgic is just a tool to help build your understanding, but as JY correctly says, once you get to the upper score bands, that needs to disappear. Once your skills are refined to that level you should be working to understand logical arguments in English without resorting to mapping. It's hard to know exactly what your issue is without an example question, but from the sound of it I think you're trying to make every question have conditional logic when that is not the case. One of the most important things with MBT is seeing the difference between validity and invalidity so you might want to revisit lessons there. And if you're using POE to get rid of the wrong answers you should be looking for the CBF ACs and those should stick out like a sore thumb for the most part.
When there are no logical indicators, Work wrong to right. Live in the answer choices. Eliminate them because they aren't supported by the text. Be aware of degree. Words like "most" and "all" and comparisons, in general, are very difficult to support.