@tarapg2901 No definitely not. A lot of the time (maybe even most of the time) the conclusion actually is identifiable by keywords. Its important though to always double check to make sure the premises actually support the statement that follows the indicator.
@Cheese in my experience, it helps you know what to look for and rearrange your thought patterns to fit the mould of the question. That said if reading the stim works for you, do that!
Agreed, im an audio-visual learner. I retain information and understand it better when someone is speaking to me. It's what drew me to this program. Now I'm bouncing back and forth between lessons, trying to absorb what's on the page and take notes at the same time. Guess I'll need the practice for law school...
Hunting for the Main Conclusion (MC) or Main Point (MP) is key to answering the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT.
Context sets up premisis which leads to Main Conclusions.
Be careful. There could be major sub-points and sub-conclusions but they are not the main conclusion.
Read the questions stem first then the answer choices. Then read the stimulus. Identify the context (support), premises (building to MC) and the Conclusion. Likely the Conclusion will refer to other parts of the argument.
Then use process of elimination for the answers and move on.
#feedback It is going to be difficult to recommend this course to other people if there's no videos to corroborate the main points. This blog format would be fine if I wasn't paying an absurd monthly fee.
#feedback Can you please add videos for these sections? Where did the videos go?? They are so helpful and really help emphasize the points and breakdown of questions.
I get it that but and however can be good indicators of MC, but is it also true that therefore and thus are generally not MC indicators? Or just if they are in the final sentence of the stimulus?
This lesson feels a lot different from the lessons for LR before the LSAT changed, and I feel like I'm missing something by only seeing these. #help #feedback
ABSOLUTELY, I thought I was the only one who noticed that, I felt like version 1 made me WAY more prepared to tackle questions and this version is missing a TON of stuff and it isn't just that it is missing videos, I truly feel v1 felt more advanced.
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.
66 comments
Will it always be true that obvious conclusion indicators in the second type of question do not point to the main conclusion?
@tarapg2901 No definitely not. A lot of the time (maybe even most of the time) the conclusion actually is identifiable by keywords. Its important though to always double check to make sure the premises actually support the statement that follows the indicator.
highly suggest taking an extra 10 minutes to review the referential module!
Is it better to read the question stem first? I have always read the stimulus first
@Cheese in my experience, it helps you know what to look for and rearrange your thought patterns to fit the mould of the question. That said if reading the stim works for you, do that!
Agree, videos are needed! For those who are auditory, try using an AI text-to-speech app. It's been a game-changer on these text-only lessons.
@ElleJ this is great advice!!!
@ElleJ could you share which app you use for 7sage? Thank you.
@JennAntu05 I use Speechify
I need some more help with this section.
#feedback This should be a video
@Akastudent agreed!
@Akastudent I second that! I struggle hard with MC, which I never thought would be my biggest challenge.
i love this version of 7sage
when are videos coming back? I find them so helpful #feedback
is there a difference btw context and premises? are both not just support?
- Premise is what supports the conclusion.
- Context is filler words that distinguishes whether something has membership in this or that.
#feedback why did the video lessons stop? It is helpful to hear the commentary on examples
Agreed, im an audio-visual learner. I retain information and understand it better when someone is speaking to me. It's what drew me to this program. Now I'm bouncing back and forth between lessons, trying to absorb what's on the page and take notes at the same time. Guess I'll need the practice for law school...
that second example got me the cat. they all feel like they could be the conclusion : / help?
"Athena likes head scratches. All cats are fluffy and Athena is a cat. Thus, Athena is fluffy. All fluffy animals like head scratches."
The order of sentences in the stimulus is probably meant to cause that confusion.
Let's break down each sentence into Lawgic to help with that.
"Athena likes head scratches."
A statement of fact we have no further information.
"All cats are fluffy and Athena is a cat."
C → F
(a)C
---
(a)F
Conditional logic concludes that Athena is fluffy.
"Thus, Athena is fluffy"
This is explicitly stating the conclusion we've already established previously.
"All Fluffy Animals like head scratches."
F → H
(a)F
---
(a)H
Conditional Logic concludes that Athena (who is fluffy) will like head scratches.
This is ALSO explicitly stated in the first sentence.
So the chained lawgic is: (a)C → (a)F → (a)H
In other words: Sub Premise → Sub Conclusion/Major Premise → Major Conclusion
So the main conclusion is that Athena likes head scratches.
Hope this helped clear things up!
When are the videos coming back? #feedback
@mszchloechen640 did the videos ever end up coming back?? i hate having no videos
uhhh when are the videos coming back??// Lol
@anthonyesc42442 they just dipped bruh.
Hunting for the Main Conclusion (MC) or Main Point (MP) is key to answering the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT.
Context sets up premisis which leads to Main Conclusions.
Be careful. There could be major sub-points and sub-conclusions but they are not the main conclusion.
Read the questions stem first then the answer choices. Then read the stimulus. Identify the context (support), premises (building to MC) and the Conclusion. Likely the Conclusion will refer to other parts of the argument.
Then use process of elimination for the answers and move on.
Also, where are the videos?
#feedback It is going to be difficult to recommend this course to other people if there's no videos to corroborate the main points. This blog format would be fine if I wasn't paying an absurd monthly fee.
#feedback Can you please add videos for these sections? Where did the videos go?? They are so helpful and really help emphasize the points and breakdown of questions.
theres no video, i think youre muted
so are videos just non existent now? im cooked chat #feedback
Where are the videos? I got the course specifically for the videos.
Same :(
me too. what the..... haha
I get it that but and however can be good indicators of MC, but is it also true that therefore and thus are generally not MC indicators? Or just if they are in the final sentence of the stimulus?
that's a good question
when will the videos be back?
#feedback Do I understand correctly you are recommending on the test to skip past any non MC question to complete those first?
#feedback calling "context indicator" can be a bit misleading when it actually indicates the start of the author's argument.
can someone expand on referential phrasing vs other phrasing via answer choices?
I also have this same question #help
This lesson feels a lot different from the lessons for LR before the LSAT changed, and I feel like I'm missing something by only seeing these. #help #feedback
ABSOLUTELY, I thought I was the only one who noticed that, I felt like version 1 made me WAY more prepared to tackle questions and this version is missing a TON of stuff and it isn't just that it is missing videos, I truly feel v1 felt more advanced.
Then shouldn't you use V1?