It would be helpful if all of the answer choices are presented and then the speaker goes thru each instead. Just starting by showing the correct answer from the get go makes it harder to follow honestly.
This one was interesting. The explanation on induction logic made perfect sense to me as that is how I understood the stimulus as I read it, and as such speculated that answer A was indeed the conclusion. The wrong answer reasoning is that the author accepts it to be true automatically and then provides an example which is not justification for her belief. But i find it hard to wrap my head around this. If someone makes a statement (ie a rule), and I ask them to convince me that the rule is true, would not their best chance of doing that be to provide examples (ie evidence)? I interpreted the piano example as support for the conclusion statement of how musical instruments are classified. Im glad to have watched this lesson however, so I know how to apply this rule moving forward.
For me, answer choice A was wrong, aside from the fact that it's paraphrasing the premise, not the main conclusion, because it's prescriptive (uses the word 'should') when the context in the premise is descriptive...is that correct?
#help why is the first sentence a premise instead of context? I'm having a little hard time seeing how it supports the conclusion and doesn't serve as background info
I am not able to understand why you say that the first premise: Classification based on mechanical action does not have support and that the author is just laying it out just like that without any justification. The last premise indicates that because strings are hit by the hammers, it produces sound, which I am aware is a support to the conclusion but can it also not be a support for the first premise since hammering is a mechanical action described here.
I was confused for a second about what the conclusion is between the 2 since there seemed to be support for the first premise, but seeing that there was more clarifying evidence about piano being a percussion instrument. I picked the piano argument as a conclusion.
Please clarify if I am misunderstanding something.
Would you suggest that, if time permitted, you could try to find the main conclusion easier if you move it towards the bottom of the stimulus? I know at times their could be two, but ONE is the main...but I think that has helped me identify the conclusion easier
How is the first sentence not context? Seems like it fits the context box since it is just giving us information.
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
50 comments
If 'so' in line 2 of the stim changes to 'for example', then will A be the right answer?
LOL, why not show a picture of how the piano works?
It would be helpful if all of the answer choices are presented and then the speaker goes thru each instead. Just starting by showing the correct answer from the get go makes it harder to follow honestly.
If only I could apply my prowess with these questions to MBT questions....
The video says the author doesn't support the general rule. I see that. How I broke down the argument is buy
1. Gereral rule,
2 application of rule,
and 3 support of application.
Does that structure make sense to other people?
Anyone confuse the first premise as context?
#feedback the subtitles say "outside" before 0:25 when it should be "LSAT"
This one was interesting. The explanation on induction logic made perfect sense to me as that is how I understood the stimulus as I read it, and as such speculated that answer A was indeed the conclusion. The wrong answer reasoning is that the author accepts it to be true automatically and then provides an example which is not justification for her belief. But i find it hard to wrap my head around this. If someone makes a statement (ie a rule), and I ask them to convince me that the rule is true, would not their best chance of doing that be to provide examples (ie evidence)? I interpreted the piano example as support for the conclusion statement of how musical instruments are classified. Im glad to have watched this lesson however, so I know how to apply this rule moving forward.
Why is this lesson optional? Just wondering
I wish i could see all of the answer choices before he just dives into explaining why E is right #feedback
For me, answer choice A was wrong, aside from the fact that it's paraphrasing the premise, not the main conclusion, because it's prescriptive (uses the word 'should') when the context in the premise is descriptive...is that correct?
#help why is the first sentence a premise instead of context? I'm having a little hard time seeing how it supports the conclusion and doesn't serve as background info
hi
I mistook the first sentence as the context instead of the conclusion. Does anyone have any tips on how to not make this mixup again?
I am not able to understand why you say that the first premise: Classification based on mechanical action does not have support and that the author is just laying it out just like that without any justification. The last premise indicates that because strings are hit by the hammers, it produces sound, which I am aware is a support to the conclusion but can it also not be a support for the first premise since hammering is a mechanical action described here.
I was confused for a second about what the conclusion is between the 2 since there seemed to be support for the first premise, but seeing that there was more clarifying evidence about piano being a percussion instrument. I picked the piano argument as a conclusion.
Please clarify if I am misunderstanding something.
Could E also be a better answer than A because A uses the word should whereas that is not said in the stimulus?
If instead of "so the piano...", it said ,"for example, the piano...", would A be the correct answer?
If a question asks for "main point" instead of "main conclusion" does that mean the same thing?
- Fear blinds. (do not misread)
- He sounds like Logic
Is the concession point the counterclaim?
I have definitely misread answers under the pressure of test conditions. I appreciate the insight into that.
Would you suggest that, if time permitted, you could try to find the main conclusion easier if you move it towards the bottom of the stimulus? I know at times their could be two, but ONE is the main...but I think that has helped me identify the conclusion easier
Great!
Now I'll be imagining the "Piano Man" up there blasting tight fills.
#feedback
How is the first sentence not context? Seems like it fits the context box since it is just giving us information.