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.
@tarapg2901 Imo,, if you ask "why" or "how do we know", there's no information within the stimulus telling us how the penalty won't change behaviour. What the stimulus does tell us though is that the information from the trial has still led to useful info (which the last sentence/premise details)
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!
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
91 comments
Correct with 20 seconds to spare
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.
@tarapg2901 Imo,, if you ask "why" or "how do we know", there's no information within the stimulus telling us how the penalty won't change behaviour. What the stimulus does tell us though is that the information from the trial has still led to useful info (which the last sentence/premise details)
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.
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.
I would say just focus on drilling questions and understanding them for now. Speed will come later.
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?