How do we know that "The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior" is not part of the main conclusion? It seems like a necessary piece to make the main conclusion as identified in the video comprehensible.
Well at least i got the blind review right. What clicked for me was noticing the indicator "since" that I hadn't paid attention to the first time around. The first time I felt the 2nd to last sentence supported the last one, and the "after all" tricked me
I have been getting all these questions right so far (and often within the time margin), but find that I am not really able to identify minor vs. major premises and tend to ignore sub-conclusions.
I usually just look for the main conclusion within the stimulus. Is this a bad approach?
@Lylas123 I personally do not think it is a bad approach but you need to be careful.
If you are reading the question stem first and then reading the stimulus, you should be fine. (Because you will know it is a MC question.)
if you aren't reading the question stem and simply know it is a MC question because this is the concept we are studying right now then you should be a little worried.
You need to take in all of the information because what if it isn't a MC question? On exam day you wont know if it is or isn't until you read the question stem.
@jenniferthorne2004 There needs to be more lessons on identifying the conclusion, its very murky from following the previous lessons which didnt explain it well enough to grasp where context begins and ends.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I agree and I know its annoying to here, but the best thing to do is just go back and re do skill builders and just practise it more. I know it sucks and feels so horrible when going back but I re did a ton of them and found that after enough hours (only 2-3) I was much better at identifying the conclusions and the indicators that show us the obvious answers. Good luck :)
@schusterkarli487 Not sure how this will help, but for these MC questions, I put myself in the author’s place-I ask what my point is and what supports it. Reading out loud also helps, because conclusions are often more assertive, while explanations are more “here’s why.” LOL don't quote me - i am not sure how it'll work on harder convoluted questions.
I thought that the minor premise was the major premise/sub conclusion and that the major premise/sub conclusion was just a regular premise. Is this a problem? If so how do I fix that?
(I was 100% confident in my answer and got it right but I just want to make sure this confusion isn't an issue)
I thought about it like this—Conclusion: trial was worthwhile. WHY (what's the support)? Because it provided useful information about the company's practices. WHY? The three reasons listed at the end. Asking "why" the other way wouldn't make sense, at least in my mind.
Does anyone have any tips on hitting the target time for each question. I am alway a few seconds over it but have been getting all the questions correct so far. Would love some tips or strategies!
I would say practice identifying premises, conclusions, and sub-conclusions faster. I'm normally able to answer these quickly by just being able to identify the conclusion and find it in the AC right away.
As well, a good tip if you're struggling b/n to answer choices is asking ourself does one support the other? Whichever AC supports the other one it is automatically incorrect since a conclusion cannot support another statement.
These lessons with blind reviews and video explanations are remarkably helpful. These will definitely help me to identify the conclusions during the LSAT feel habitual.
If anyone is having trouble with this question, this is what I did.
I read the question and highlighted what I am looking for. Read the passage twice. First time and then read it again. Highlight what sticks out to you. Think back to how 7sage taught you to look for premises and conclusions. Compare answers. It should draw you to the right answer.
A tip from me:
Indicators - if it makes sense use them, if not then ditch it or try another indicator.
In this case the key is the since indicator (for, since, because) - > Con since Pre. What goes before and after these key words.
Or Another way of thinking about it is reading it like someone telling you a story. It helps me stay engaged. I find that this helps me find what I am looking for.
"After all" is a premise indicator, "after all" is commonly used as a premise indicator rather than a conclusion indicator because it introduces reasons or evidence supporting a claim. In logical reasoning and argument structure, premises provide the basis for a conclusion and "after all" signals that what follows serves as a reason or justification for a previously stated conclusion.
I am doing great on all of the questions and I have gotten each one correct so far, but I'm off of the target time by 15-30 seconds each time. Does anyone have tips on how to get faster? The first time I took the LSAT this was my biggest struggle.
In my opinion, the tight time constraints make the LSAT so hard. I am a native English speaker and a very fast reader. The first time I tried LSAT questions I thought, "wow this must be so hard for non-native English speakers". I took my first PT before I started studying but gave myself more time and barely got any wrong. For my second PT, I stuck within the time and did much worse. The pressure makes things harder. From reading other people's comments, the only thing you can do is keep practicing and find strategies to make yourself interpret the questions and stimulus faster :)
Pondered between A & D , in the end I chose D. I was able to find additional similarities to the MC in Answer choice D than A because of the repetitive grammar. (worthwhile) (trial) (practices)
Sorry if this has been answered before, but for logical reasoning questions, should we read the question first before the stimulus so we know what to look for? Or just read the stimulus first?
I personally find that reading questions first (even in RC) helps me to know what to pay attention to. That way, I don't end up caught up in the weeds of other aspects of LR.
just do what works for you. if i read the question first i find myself scanning the stimulus only for the answer, or what i think the answer should look like, and i miss key details.
I think I'm the same way. Reading the question first has helped me pay better attention to what I'm reading and understand what I'm looking for. Thanks for your comment!
The second sentence of the context makes a claim. "the penalty impoesd on the companyy will probably have little if any effect on its behavior." How do we make the distinction between this being the authors claim or context. I was stuck between C and D and eventually chose D because the premises supported it more than C but this still tripped me up.
I just gave it some more though. Actually, it's very clear now. While we don't know who made the claim/conclusion that the penalties will probably have little effect on the company's behavior, it's still something that needs support nonetheless, and it had none. ALL the premises in the stimulus supported why the trial was nonetheless worthwhile. None of them mentioned again why the penalties wouldn't do anything to the company.
We were both in the same mindset that C was definitely a conclusion (made by the author or someone we don't know). We were a little blind that there was nothing supporting it at all and should have been crossed off right away. Nonetheless, we both saw that there was plenty of support for D and that is why it must have been the main conclusion.
Note to both of us in the future: if there is any contention between two sentences possibly being the conclusion, look for which one has no support at all. If both of them have support, look at which one has the MOST support funneled to it.
It makes me very happy that I could help, Sehar! :) If you're at all interested in creating a study group together—since it seems we're in the same place—I'd be happy to answer some questions or bounce some questions off you if I come into any trouble. Just let me know, and I can give you my email.
Colin, you're helping me out again! This was the first question I got wrong - I assumed that C was the conclusion and D was the sub-conclusion. Your explanation makes total sense tho and I will definitely keep it in mind as I progress throughout this section and PT's.
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.
89 comments
got it right and with one second left muahahha
i was dumb here and didn't read through all the questions in an attempt to lower my time. got it right on blind review
How do we know that "The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior" is not part of the main conclusion? It seems like a necessary piece to make the main conclusion as identified in the video comprehensible.
HAHA FINALLY! got one correct AND under time!
I am getting majority of the questions right but not within the time limit. Should I be really worried about that at the moment?
Well at least i got the blind review right. What clicked for me was noticing the indicator "since" that I hadn't paid attention to the first time around. The first time I felt the 2nd to last sentence supported the last one, and the "after all" tricked me
I wish all questions were Main Conclusion! Lol
BOOM LETS GO
The conclusion is this:
If you had one sentence to take away/get straight to the point...it would be the conclusion.
I have been getting all these questions right so far (and often within the time margin), but find that I am not really able to identify minor vs. major premises and tend to ignore sub-conclusions.
I usually just look for the main conclusion within the stimulus. Is this a bad approach?
@Lylas123 I personally do not think it is a bad approach but you need to be careful.
If you are reading the question stem first and then reading the stimulus, you should be fine. (Because you will know it is a MC question.)
if you aren't reading the question stem and simply know it is a MC question because this is the concept we are studying right now then you should be a little worried.
You need to take in all of the information because what if it isn't a MC question? On exam day you wont know if it is or isn't until you read the question stem.
I am getting all these questions wrong in this module. Help!
I would recommend going back to the Arguments module in the Foundations section, I found it really helpful for all the main conclusion questions!
@jenniferthorne2004 There needs to be more lessons on identifying the conclusion, its very murky from following the previous lessons which didnt explain it well enough to grasp where context begins and ends.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I agree and I know its annoying to here, but the best thing to do is just go back and re do skill builders and just practise it more. I know it sucks and feels so horrible when going back but I re did a ton of them and found that after enough hours (only 2-3) I was much better at identifying the conclusions and the indicators that show us the obvious answers. Good luck :)
@schusterkarli487 Not sure how this will help, but for these MC questions, I put myself in the author’s place-I ask what my point is and what supports it. Reading out loud also helps, because conclusions are often more assertive, while explanations are more “here’s why.” LOL don't quote me - i am not sure how it'll work on harder convoluted questions.
I thought that the minor premise was the major premise/sub conclusion and that the major premise/sub conclusion was just a regular premise. Is this a problem? If so how do I fix that?
(I was 100% confident in my answer and got it right but I just want to make sure this confusion isn't an issue)
I thought about it like this—Conclusion: trial was worthwhile. WHY (what's the support)? Because it provided useful information about the company's practices. WHY? The three reasons listed at the end. Asking "why" the other way wouldn't make sense, at least in my mind.
Getting all these questions right in this module!!! Congrats to everyone working so hard - this stuff ain't easy!!
I have also gotten every one of these right. This question took me 25 seconds. It feels so formulaic at this point, very encouraging.
Does anyone have any tips on hitting the target time for each question. I am alway a few seconds over it but have been getting all the questions correct so far. Would love some tips or strategies!
I would say practice identifying premises, conclusions, and sub-conclusions faster. I'm normally able to answer these quickly by just being able to identify the conclusion and find it in the AC right away.
As well, a good tip if you're struggling b/n to answer choices is asking ourself does one support the other? Whichever AC supports the other one it is automatically incorrect since a conclusion cannot support another statement.
How do you know what the target time is?
hover over the time you took on the question after seeing the results and it shows the target time.
These lessons with blind reviews and video explanations are remarkably helpful. These will definitely help me to identify the conclusions during the LSAT feel habitual.
Always highlight the different parts! I underline what I think may be the conclusion as I am going through and it helps SO much!!!
I totally agree! after highlighting the conclusion it makes answering the questions go by much faster!
If anyone is having trouble with this question, this is what I did.
I read the question and highlighted what I am looking for. Read the passage twice. First time and then read it again. Highlight what sticks out to you. Think back to how 7sage taught you to look for premises and conclusions. Compare answers. It should draw you to the right answer.
A tip from me:
Indicators - if it makes sense use them, if not then ditch it or try another indicator.
In this case the key is the since indicator (for, since, because) - > Con since Pre. What goes before and after these key words.
Or Another way of thinking about it is reading it like someone telling you a story. It helps me stay engaged. I find that this helps me find what I am looking for.
Is "after all" a premise or conclusion indicator? To me after all is the same as therefore.
#feedback #help
"After all" is a premise indicator, "after all" is commonly used as a premise indicator rather than a conclusion indicator because it introduces reasons or evidence supporting a claim. In logical reasoning and argument structure, premises provide the basis for a conclusion and "after all" signals that what follows serves as a reason or justification for a previously stated conclusion.
I am doing great on all of the questions and I have gotten each one correct so far, but I'm off of the target time by 15-30 seconds each time. Does anyone have tips on how to get faster? The first time I took the LSAT this was my biggest struggle.
I would say just focus on drilling questions and understanding them for now. Speed will come later.
lol i'm off by 1:30 don't worry. He said down the line you work on speed. I think now it is simply about understanding.
Structure:
CTX: "A large company....behavior"
Main conc.: "Still, the trial was worthwhile..."
Major premise / sub-conclusion: "...since it provided..."
Minor premise: "After all, ..."
Answer Choices:
(A) Author says trial was worthwhile, doesn't speculate on if the company had not been convicted.
(B) cookie cutter wrong: premise not conclusion
(C) cookie cutter wrong: context not conclusion
(D) answer: structure: The company's trial (referent = good) was worthwhile
(E) doesn't answer MCC question type at all
I am curious, how long does it take you guys to read the stem, question, answers and making the decision which one to pick?
Personally it takes me 90-120 seconds.
P.S. English is not my native language, I moved to the United States few months ago. My English is very good, but not scientifically good.
In my opinion, the tight time constraints make the LSAT so hard. I am a native English speaker and a very fast reader. The first time I tried LSAT questions I thought, "wow this must be so hard for non-native English speakers". I took my first PT before I started studying but gave myself more time and barely got any wrong. For my second PT, I stuck within the time and did much worse. The pressure makes things harder. From reading other people's comments, the only thing you can do is keep practicing and find strategies to make yourself interpret the questions and stimulus faster :)
I'm not a native speaker and I tried my best to read as fast as possible. I'm still a few seconds off the target. It's really tight time frame.
Pondered between A & D , in the end I chose D. I was able to find additional similarities to the MC in Answer choice D than A because of the repetitive grammar. (worthwhile) (trial) (practices)
Sorry if this has been answered before, but for logical reasoning questions, should we read the question first before the stimulus so we know what to look for? Or just read the stimulus first?
I have heard people do both but I typically read the question stem first and that is what has been recommended by 7sage and the LSAT Trainer
I personally find that reading questions first (even in RC) helps me to know what to pay attention to. That way, I don't end up caught up in the weeds of other aspects of LR.
just do what works for you. if i read the question first i find myself scanning the stimulus only for the answer, or what i think the answer should look like, and i miss key details.
Makes sense. Thanks!
I think I'm the same way. Reading the question first has helped me pay better attention to what I'm reading and understand what I'm looking for. Thanks for your comment!
Makes sense. Appreciate it!!
Would the second sentence of the context be considered the hypotheses of the passage?
The second sentence of the context makes a claim. "the penalty impoesd on the companyy will probably have little if any effect on its behavior." How do we make the distinction between this being the authors claim or context. I was stuck between C and D and eventually chose D because the premises supported it more than C but this still tripped me up.
I'm feeling the same as you. I've got all these questions right so far, but this one felt like a gamble between C and D
I just gave it some more though. Actually, it's very clear now. While we don't know who made the claim/conclusion that the penalties will probably have little effect on the company's behavior, it's still something that needs support nonetheless, and it had none. ALL the premises in the stimulus supported why the trial was nonetheless worthwhile. None of them mentioned again why the penalties wouldn't do anything to the company.
We were both in the same mindset that C was definitely a conclusion (made by the author or someone we don't know). We were a little blind that there was nothing supporting it at all and should have been crossed off right away. Nonetheless, we both saw that there was plenty of support for D and that is why it must have been the main conclusion.
Note to both of us in the future: if there is any contention between two sentences possibly being the conclusion, look for which one has no support at all. If both of them have support, look at which one has the MOST support funneled to it.
It makes me very happy that I could help, Sehar! :) If you're at all interested in creating a study group together—since it seems we're in the same place—I'd be happy to answer some questions or bounce some questions off you if I come into any trouble. Just let me know, and I can give you my email.
count me in if you're still making a group!
Colin, you're helping me out again! This was the first question I got wrong - I assumed that C was the conclusion and D was the sub-conclusion. Your explanation makes total sense tho and I will definitely keep it in mind as I progress throughout this section and PT's.