I do not agree that these lessons about causal effects/ideal experiment is not useful. You just have to connect the dots when it comes to actual causal arguments especially in weakener/strengthener questions.
Not trying to be the naysayer hear, but wth does this have to do with LSAT? Am I going to stop to conduct this experiment under a timed-constraint? NO!
@Mikeorona619 Yeah haha, honestly, that's so true. But I think what we need to get from this is if we stumble across a LR and it is in an experimentation setting, we can think about these examples here!
For instance if we come across a weaken problem, there might be an answer choice that basically boils down to 'the participants are actually affected by the placebo effect' or something like that.
@Mikeorona619 This helps with making predictions as you read the stim before you get to the answer choices. If you're reading a flaw, weakener, or strengthener, for example, you're ahead of the game if you already have an instinct as to what was missing in what you read
#feedback- why are there no videos? Like I seriously dont understand why am I reading this? I have ZERO understanding of this reading class, or whatever you call it
Bring back the videos!! they helped to make the information more digestible... almost like a friend was telling me something. They stuck in my brain and when it came to applying it to practice questions I could hear the conversation in my head
Is it possible for Group 1 to experience significant pain-reduction from an effective medication, and for Group 2 (having been administered sugar pills) to also experience significant pain-reduction through the placebo effect?
In this way, the medication that was administered was still effective, yet the placebo effect in Group 2 was equally powerful. In this hypothetical situation, the placebo effect does not necessarily negate the medication's efficacy.
Hey guys, I read the whole chapter and understood up to competing hypothesis but what is the point of knowing all these experiment factors? (ideal experiment, placebo, blinding)
I understand the sample representation because some LR questions deal with samples but why do we need to know ideal experiments, placebo, and blinding? Are they necessary so we can run an ideal experiment in our head on LSAT? Please share your opinions.
Prior to signing up for 7sage, I read The Loophole which is another resource to help with the LSAT that focuses on LR. A very, very brief summary of The Loophole is that it is a method used to analyze the arguments and blow up the gaps between the premises. I bring this up because these previous lessons remind me of different ways I can find loopholes when reading the stimulus. Also, I do not think this would pertain to only survey stimuli.
Knowing how an experiment is supposed to be ran allows you to approach experiments with extreme skepticism and find if there are pitfalls in them on the exam. But, thats just the thing, unless you know how they are supposed to go and how one can draw strong correlations or make conclusions on them, then you wont be able to figure out why something is flawed, or why it is not valid to draw the conclusion.
Say, you have an expert witness on the stand for trial and you are the defense attorney, it is crucial to the success of the case that the jury disregards the experts testimony so it is your job as a lawyer to poke holes in that experiment.
Similarly, the LSAT is going to see if you can logically find reasons that claims made from scientists experiments could be weakened or strengthened using the concept of the ideal experiment.
If something asks you to strengthen the argument and it would indeed verify the controls, GREAT! As long as that most strengthens the argument, that could be your answer. If you're asked to weaken, and one of the answer choices blows a hole in the controls? This invalidates the experiment and could VERY likely be your answer.
My Diagnostic was PT 140, and I believe there is a question that does this on the test. it had something to do with smells and sulfur! So, you will encounter the science question and you will have to figure out how to reasonably and logically criticize it!
It seems like these last lessons are highlighting that we don't just exist in a vacuum, and when we're presented with a supposed cause-and-effect relationship, such as:
No visual explanations for concepts → Confused
We should consider that there might be other factors at play. In this case, confusion could stem from various reasons beyond the lack of visual explanations. For instance, I’m neurodivergent, which could be an alternative hypothesis for many of us who are confused. It's also possible that some 7Sage users might attribute their confusion to the lack of visual explanations simply because they've been influenced by comments from other 7Sage users.
So, is the main takeaway that we should be cautious of given cause-and-effect relationships and look for ways that the world of the text may influence the given cause and effect, and then consider alternative hypotheses?
I'm confused when it comes to this, I was told that the LSAT did not require any outside information. While most students taking the LSAT have likely taken a lab in their life and are familiar with how experiments are conducted, doesn't this count as outside information? On the test for example, in regards to an experiment, am I supposed to assume that every question needs to account for a placebo? It's confusing, because I thought this was about Logical Reasoning, yet i'm being told in this lesson that I have to account for blinding, placebo, and other issues which pertain to science experiments.
I am sure you have found your answers by now, but, as a person who is getting their BS in a science and also prepping for the LSAT here is my take:
While it is true that you, technically, do not need outside information, you do need to be able to critique all forms of an argument. Scientific experiments are technically at their core scientists making arguments with their evidence and, you, as a future lawyer, should approach with the skepticism to poke logical holes. It just so happens to do that it is easier to name some of the definitions you commonly see with scientific experiments.
In fact, I was told that the LSAT disguises certain arguments and skills you practice on the LSAT that have lawyerly words associated to them. Like you do not need to know what the logical fallacies are, but you may encounter them and have to prove them wrong, etc.
Plus things like this could be applied to outside the experiment realm. When someone makes an assumption on a much larger group based on the observation off of personal experience (there is a automobile question on PT 140), like the sampling bias, those people ought to be misguided because there is no way 2 cars is representative of every car of that make and model. It is not technically an experiment or framed as one, but it is the same principle.
At its roots, science is applying logic to answer questions, so it is really useful for the LSAT and beyond to understand how and why scientists make these causal arguments bulletproof, because these same reasons are why many arguments are not bulletproof.
#feedback "Blind" refers to when the person on whom the experiment is being performed is unaware of whether they're in the test or control group, whereas "double blind" is when neither the experimenter nor "experimentee" is aware of the group in which the "experimentee" is placed. You might've already known that and not bothered to mention it, haha.
during the test how are you supposed to be aware of such situations
"In other words, could mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment cause you to experience therapeutic benefits? If the answer is "no," then knowledge has no causal power and hence it doesn't matter that we failed to control for it. But, as it turns out, the answer is "yes." Mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment can, in some circumstances, cause you to experience therapeutic effects."
Then you're cancelled out by the people in the other group who also are not aware of it OR the parameters of the experiment are explained before the test is administered
There's actually a few typos I noticed after re-reading! "Lucky for us, researchers have known about this pitfall and have come up with a solution: administering something that looks, feels, tastes, etc. like a drug but it actually inert."
"Let's again say that the results are that Group 1 experiences significant pain reduction but this time, Group 2 does as well. There is no difference between the two group's experiences of signification pain reduction." #feedback
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
31 comments
I do not agree that these lessons about causal effects/ideal experiment is not useful. You just have to connect the dots when it comes to actual causal arguments especially in weakener/strengthener questions.
lessons like this feel sort of useless. I get that some LR questions could be about an experiment, but this is so abstract to the exam
Not trying to be the naysayer hear, but wth does this have to do with LSAT? Am I going to stop to conduct this experiment under a timed-constraint? NO!
@Mikeorona619 Yeah haha, honestly, that's so true. But I think what we need to get from this is if we stumble across a LR and it is in an experimentation setting, we can think about these examples here!
For instance if we come across a weaken problem, there might be an answer choice that basically boils down to 'the participants are actually affected by the placebo effect' or something like that.
Hope this helps and good luck!
@Mikeorona619 This helps with making predictions as you read the stim before you get to the answer choices. If you're reading a flaw, weakener, or strengthener, for example, you're ahead of the game if you already have an instinct as to what was missing in what you read
#feedback- why are there no videos? Like I seriously dont understand why am I reading this? I have ZERO understanding of this reading class, or whatever you call it
#feedback
Bring back the videos!! they helped to make the information more digestible... almost like a friend was telling me something. They stuck in my brain and when it came to applying it to practice questions I could hear the conversation in my head
question re: placebo effect
Is it possible for Group 1 to experience significant pain-reduction from an effective medication, and for Group 2 (having been administered sugar pills) to also experience significant pain-reduction through the placebo effect?
In this way, the medication that was administered was still effective, yet the placebo effect in Group 2 was equally powerful. In this hypothetical situation, the placebo effect does not necessarily negate the medication's efficacy.
Hey guys, I read the whole chapter and understood up to competing hypothesis but what is the point of knowing all these experiment factors? (ideal experiment, placebo, blinding)
I understand the sample representation because some LR questions deal with samples but why do we need to know ideal experiments, placebo, and blinding? Are they necessary so we can run an ideal experiment in our head on LSAT? Please share your opinions.
Hi.
Prior to signing up for 7sage, I read The Loophole which is another resource to help with the LSAT that focuses on LR. A very, very brief summary of The Loophole is that it is a method used to analyze the arguments and blow up the gaps between the premises. I bring this up because these previous lessons remind me of different ways I can find loopholes when reading the stimulus. Also, I do not think this would pertain to only survey stimuli.
Knowing how an experiment is supposed to be ran allows you to approach experiments with extreme skepticism and find if there are pitfalls in them on the exam. But, thats just the thing, unless you know how they are supposed to go and how one can draw strong correlations or make conclusions on them, then you wont be able to figure out why something is flawed, or why it is not valid to draw the conclusion.
Say, you have an expert witness on the stand for trial and you are the defense attorney, it is crucial to the success of the case that the jury disregards the experts testimony so it is your job as a lawyer to poke holes in that experiment.
Similarly, the LSAT is going to see if you can logically find reasons that claims made from scientists experiments could be weakened or strengthened using the concept of the ideal experiment.
If something asks you to strengthen the argument and it would indeed verify the controls, GREAT! As long as that most strengthens the argument, that could be your answer. If you're asked to weaken, and one of the answer choices blows a hole in the controls? This invalidates the experiment and could VERY likely be your answer.
My Diagnostic was PT 140, and I believe there is a question that does this on the test. it had something to do with smells and sulfur! So, you will encounter the science question and you will have to figure out how to reasonably and logically criticize it!
@iuust5856 You could say knowing about blinding is not a necessary condition for doing well on the LSAT.
It seems like these last lessons are highlighting that we don't just exist in a vacuum, and when we're presented with a supposed cause-and-effect relationship, such as:
No visual explanations for concepts → Confused
We should consider that there might be other factors at play. In this case, confusion could stem from various reasons beyond the lack of visual explanations. For instance, I’m neurodivergent, which could be an alternative hypothesis for many of us who are confused. It's also possible that some 7Sage users might attribute their confusion to the lack of visual explanations simply because they've been influenced by comments from other 7Sage users.
So, is the main takeaway that we should be cautious of given cause-and-effect relationships and look for ways that the world of the text may influence the given cause and effect, and then consider alternative hypotheses?
I'm confused when it comes to this, I was told that the LSAT did not require any outside information. While most students taking the LSAT have likely taken a lab in their life and are familiar with how experiments are conducted, doesn't this count as outside information? On the test for example, in regards to an experiment, am I supposed to assume that every question needs to account for a placebo? It's confusing, because I thought this was about Logical Reasoning, yet i'm being told in this lesson that I have to account for blinding, placebo, and other issues which pertain to science experiments.
I am sure you have found your answers by now, but, as a person who is getting their BS in a science and also prepping for the LSAT here is my take:
While it is true that you, technically, do not need outside information, you do need to be able to critique all forms of an argument. Scientific experiments are technically at their core scientists making arguments with their evidence and, you, as a future lawyer, should approach with the skepticism to poke logical holes. It just so happens to do that it is easier to name some of the definitions you commonly see with scientific experiments.
In fact, I was told that the LSAT disguises certain arguments and skills you practice on the LSAT that have lawyerly words associated to them. Like you do not need to know what the logical fallacies are, but you may encounter them and have to prove them wrong, etc.
Plus things like this could be applied to outside the experiment realm. When someone makes an assumption on a much larger group based on the observation off of personal experience (there is a automobile question on PT 140), like the sampling bias, those people ought to be misguided because there is no way 2 cars is representative of every car of that make and model. It is not technically an experiment or framed as one, but it is the same principle.
At its roots, science is applying logic to answer questions, so it is really useful for the LSAT and beyond to understand how and why scientists make these causal arguments bulletproof, because these same reasons are why many arguments are not bulletproof.
I miss the videos AND the "Let's review" section summarizing everything at the end.
I'm so boredddddddddd. This is good shit, but the lack of videos has taken me to Hell and back.
amen
agreed
Trying to get used to it lol, I anticipate law school to have just as much reading.
I would assume that to rely on the videos would rob individuals of the ability to advance their reading comprehension
Fun fact: The placebo effect is not limited to medication. Several successful placebo surgeries have been performed.
wow
Hey found another typo.
Last sentence of the second paragraph at the end.
"That's why you have to make sure the your subjects strictly adhere to the protocols of the experiment."
Editing this comment because I thought I found a typo but realized it was correct upon rereading. Please ignore this comment lol
#feedback "Blind" refers to when the person on whom the experiment is being performed is unaware of whether they're in the test or control group, whereas "double blind" is when neither the experimenter nor "experimentee" is aware of the group in which the "experimentee" is placed. You might've already known that and not bothered to mention it, haha.
during the test how are you supposed to be aware of such situations
"In other words, could mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment cause you to experience therapeutic benefits? If the answer is "no," then knowledge has no causal power and hence it doesn't matter that we failed to control for it. But, as it turns out, the answer is "yes." Mere knowledge that you're receiving treatment can, in some circumstances, cause you to experience therapeutic effects."
what if I am not aware of the placebo effect?
#help (Added by Admin)
Then you're cancelled out by the people in the other group who also are not aware of it OR the parameters of the experiment are explained before the test is administered
Hello! I wanted to point out a typo in the very first sentence. It should say experiment and not experimental. #feedback
There's actually a few typos I noticed after re-reading! "Lucky for us, researchers have known about this pitfall and have come up with a solution: administering something that looks, feels, tastes, etc. like a drug but it actually inert."
"Let's again say that the results are that Group 1 experiences significant pain reduction but this time, Group 2 does as well. There is no difference between the two group's experiences of signification pain reduction." #feedback
Hi there,
Thanks for the heads up!
I've corrected the typos on this lesson and please do not hesitate to let us know if you find more or if you have any questions—happy to help!