I got the answer right but I struggled for 5 mins to figure out how the premise supports the argument-- if it does support, it means that the opponents' political agendas are understood by large people, therefore they are not muddled and incomprehensible, then the criticism is insincere. However, how we know if their political agendas are understood by people or not? I asked ChatGPT and it says there's a hidden assumption that "Politicians would not criticize an opponent unless they believed the opponent’s agenda had some real chance of mobilizing people.". It lights me up, but I am thinking, I won't be able to build a logical system to think of this hidden assumption. For some questions (like this one which the conclusion is easy to identify and structure of argument is clear), I won't have to spend too much time digging the logics.
I'm really glad J.Y. mentioned sidestepping the complexity of the argument. Thought I was getting ahead of myself with how formulaic some of the questions can be. I found the conclusion immediately then just skimmed the other answers. Hoping this strategy holds up.
Choice B is interesting, because it is a generalized form of the contrapositive of the main conclusion. Obviously it's not the main conclusion, but I wonder if it would be considered weakly implied or merely suggested on the spectrum for a 'most strongly supported'. The specific example of 'politicians' who criticize opponents for their 'muddled manner' as being insincere provides some (weak) support for the general case that critics in general who criticize the manner (any manner) of presentation are insincere.
Got this one wrong because of the whole "can't always rely on referential phrasing" but it seems like it's better to rely on it than not. Ugh !! Can someone explain when exactly not to rely on referential phrasing?
@MariaLCantu Referential phrasing is just a way to understand the stimulus better. The LSAT can write out the whole clause of what it is referring to but choose not to because of convenience.
Once you can mentally note the referential phrasing is referring to something, then you can just move on. Early on it is easy to break it down the phrases.
I got this question right, however I have a question about the logic behind it.
In an earlier lesson on lawgic, it was explained that "not A" (/A) does not mean the opposite of A.
Example: (/Hot) does not mean (cold), it just means "not hot"
In this case, the conclusion of the argument says that "x is never sincere" therefore x -> /Sincere
Yet the answer to this question doesn't say x-> /Sincere, it says x-> insincere. Can someone please explain this? When I was reading this question I thought this answer may have been a trap.
@DominicCruse The question stem asks for "most accurate rendering." So, in this case, answer choice D is most accurate out of all the answer choices given to us. While "not sincere" can have a meaning other than "insincere", but from the choices we have, D is the best one.
@DominicCruse Hey Dominic! I like to think of it this way - "in-," when attached to the front of a word, is essentially akin to the word "not" in terms of how it modifies that word. For example, if someone is "incapable" of making decisions, it means that they are "not capable" of making decisions - or, in other words, "incapable" is the logical opposite/negation of the word "capable". As such, "insincere" is analogous to "not sincere," AKA the logical negation of "sincere", for if someone is acting insincerely, it means that they are not acting in a sincere manner. Thus, "in-" can act as "not" for the purposes of negation in many instances, including the one posed within this question. Apologies if this confused anything further, but I hope this helps!
So, if I am just skimming through the stimulus to find the conclusion, and have been getting all of the questions right, does that mean it is okay for me to skim through the stimulus or am I careless?
@8M_M8 Once you are skimming that means you're building your intuition which you are becoming confident in. If you can prephrase the answer choice and found the correct one then I say it would be fine.
Just be mindful on harder questions to read it if it includes sub-conclusions.
This one was hard!! I got it wrong and in the BR I almost picked D but I felt like it was wrong because it was saying that the politician was insincere when the stimulus just said their criticism was insincere.
Very helpful analysis, thanks! As someone who naturally doesn’t have strong analytical or fast language skills, I hope I will be able to do this on the exam eventually!!
This is almost too much analysis. I feel like on these Main Conclusion questions, you can just keep it simple: Identify the conclusion; identify the answer choice that best re-states the conclusion. Badabing.
@mattrettig I think they're getting us in the habit especially as we're about to start the MSS question strategies. Moreover, analyzing why some questions would be wrong will help with identifying which choices will be right. That's how im seeing it.
Honestly, I dont know if this is bad but based on the previous lessons, when I read "Such criticism, however, is never sincere" I could tell that was main conclusion and the following would most likely be premise or something else. I didn't want to confuse myself and overthink so I stopped and went with my gut. Might be a good tactic to answer MC questions confidently under time pressure.
@QarimatOgunneye I realized that right now as well. I knew it was going to be a premise to explain why, so I read on to confirm the structure of it, but then got confused by the last premise. Noted to stick with gut sometimes.
@Lawlow After doing more lessons, I can confidently say to ONLY use this method if you're really on a time crunch.
I see now that even sub-conclusions can also follow this same type of wording. So if the sub conclusion is an answer choice, you'll get it wrong; otherwise, it will make you double think. So far, going with my initial gut has been rewarding! If anything, maybe just skim the rest.
I am struggling with understanding how the negation of "sincere", which I think of as "not sincere", is actually "insincere" (as stated by the correct answer choice). This is a very silly thing because it seems obvious, but I have LSAT brain and I immediately think: okay just because it is not sincere doesn't necessarily mean its insincere. Maybe its ambiguous or neutral in terms of sincerity.
This isn't something I'm very worried about as I chose the right answer by eliminating other answers, however its bugging me a bit. I guess the absence of sincerity is just insincerity.
@cckiener142 This is one of those areas where you would have to make a reasonable assumption; looking at the other possible answers, the correct answer is the one that most closely resembles the conclusion you found within the stimulus. I agree with you, and did pause for a bit to ask myself "is insincere truely 'not sincere'?", but, at the end of the day, it was closest to what was said.
I am having a hard time understanding how the correct answer translates into the stimulus. In the stimulus, the conclusion is calling the CRITICISMS insincere, but the correct answer is calling POLITICIANS insincere.
The first sentence says "it is not uncommon for politicians to criticize..." and the second sentence (with the conclusion) says "such criticism." "Such criticism" is a referential phrase referring to the critics of the politicians from the previous sentences.
Also, if you take a step back from the LSAT of it all and just think about the statement, it's clear that, if one is saying something insincere, then they are being insincere. Don't overthink it.
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.
110 comments
Got it right, on the first try, and I was lost as mentioned, not truly understand the passage however I did pick up on the pattern.
Got it right but second guessed myself in the blind review 😭
and here i was feeling guilty for always skipping through long stims when i know they only want the conclusion
got it right w +00:56 seconds we're getting faster! yay!
Just one question. Would answer choice "C" be a good answer choice for a strengthening argument in a way compared to other answer choices?
Got it right but timing sux
-0.07 seconds on timing and got it right woohoo!
I might have actually managed to learn something, about 30 hours into the course.
I got the answer right but I struggled for 5 mins to figure out how the premise supports the argument-- if it does support, it means that the opponents' political agendas are understood by large people, therefore they are not muddled and incomprehensible, then the criticism is insincere. However, how we know if their political agendas are understood by people or not? I asked ChatGPT and it says there's a hidden assumption that "Politicians would not criticize an opponent unless they believed the opponent’s agenda had some real chance of mobilizing people.". It lights me up, but I am thinking, I won't be able to build a logical system to think of this hidden assumption. For some questions (like this one which the conclusion is easy to identify and structure of argument is clear), I won't have to spend too much time digging the logics.
YAYAYA im improving on my timing :) super happy with my progress:)
The lesson on Hypothesis and phenomenon had been primarily helpful as I encounter the MC questions.
got it right AND was under time!!!
BOOM ANOTHER ONE CORRECT
I'm really glad J.Y. mentioned sidestepping the complexity of the argument. Thought I was getting ahead of myself with how formulaic some of the questions can be. I found the conclusion immediately then just skimmed the other answers. Hoping this strategy holds up.
Choice B is interesting, because it is a generalized form of the contrapositive of the main conclusion. Obviously it's not the main conclusion, but I wonder if it would be considered weakly implied or merely suggested on the spectrum for a 'most strongly supported'. The specific example of 'politicians' who criticize opponents for their 'muddled manner' as being insincere provides some (weak) support for the general case that critics in general who criticize the manner (any manner) of presentation are insincere.
Got this one wrong because of the whole "can't always rely on referential phrasing" but it seems like it's better to rely on it than not. Ugh !! Can someone explain when exactly not to rely on referential phrasing?
@MariaLCantu Referential phrasing is just a way to understand the stimulus better. The LSAT can write out the whole clause of what it is referring to but choose not to because of convenience.
Once you can mentally note the referential phrasing is referring to something, then you can just move on. Early on it is easy to break it down the phrases.
I got this question right, however I have a question about the logic behind it.
In an earlier lesson on lawgic, it was explained that "not A" (/A) does not mean the opposite of A.
Example: (/Hot) does not mean (cold), it just means "not hot"
In this case, the conclusion of the argument says that "x is never sincere" therefore x -> /Sincere
Yet the answer to this question doesn't say x-> /Sincere, it says x-> insincere. Can someone please explain this? When I was reading this question I thought this answer may have been a trap.
@DominicCruse The question stem asks for "most accurate rendering." So, in this case, answer choice D is most accurate out of all the answer choices given to us. While "not sincere" can have a meaning other than "insincere", but from the choices we have, D is the best one.
Hope this helped! :)
@DominicCruse Hey Dominic! I like to think of it this way - "in-," when attached to the front of a word, is essentially akin to the word "not" in terms of how it modifies that word. For example, if someone is "incapable" of making decisions, it means that they are "not capable" of making decisions - or, in other words, "incapable" is the logical opposite/negation of the word "capable". As such, "insincere" is analogous to "not sincere," AKA the logical negation of "sincere", for if someone is acting insincerely, it means that they are not acting in a sincere manner. Thus, "in-" can act as "not" for the purposes of negation in many instances, including the one posed within this question. Apologies if this confused anything further, but I hope this helps!
@JennaInch That's what helped me choose the right answer. I think reviewing my prefixes and suffixes won't be a bad idea.
So, if I am just skimming through the stimulus to find the conclusion, and have been getting all of the questions right, does that mean it is okay for me to skim through the stimulus or am I careless?
@8M_M8 Once you are skimming that means you're building your intuition which you are becoming confident in. If you can prephrase the answer choice and found the correct one then I say it would be fine.
Just be mindful on harder questions to read it if it includes sub-conclusions.
This one was hard!! I got it wrong and in the BR I almost picked D but I felt like it was wrong because it was saying that the politician was insincere when the stimulus just said their criticism was insincere.
This one was TOUGH but I got it right!!
Very helpful analysis, thanks! As someone who naturally doesn’t have strong analytical or fast language skills, I hope I will be able to do this on the exam eventually!!
This is almost too much analysis. I feel like on these Main Conclusion questions, you can just keep it simple: Identify the conclusion; identify the answer choice that best re-states the conclusion. Badabing.
@mattrettig I think they're getting us in the habit especially as we're about to start the MSS question strategies. Moreover, analyzing why some questions would be wrong will help with identifying which choices will be right. That's how im seeing it.
Honestly, I dont know if this is bad but based on the previous lessons, when I read "Such criticism, however, is never sincere" I could tell that was main conclusion and the following would most likely be premise or something else. I didn't want to confuse myself and overthink so I stopped and went with my gut. Might be a good tactic to answer MC questions confidently under time pressure.
@QarimatOgunneye I realized that right now as well. I knew it was going to be a premise to explain why, so I read on to confirm the structure of it, but then got confused by the last premise. Noted to stick with gut sometimes.
@Lawlow After doing more lessons, I can confidently say to ONLY use this method if you're really on a time crunch.
I see now that even sub-conclusions can also follow this same type of wording. So if the sub conclusion is an answer choice, you'll get it wrong; otherwise, it will make you double think. So far, going with my initial gut has been rewarding! If anything, maybe just skim the rest.
I am struggling with understanding how the negation of "sincere", which I think of as "not sincere", is actually "insincere" (as stated by the correct answer choice). This is a very silly thing because it seems obvious, but I have LSAT brain and I immediately think: okay just because it is not sincere doesn't necessarily mean its insincere. Maybe its ambiguous or neutral in terms of sincerity.
This isn't something I'm very worried about as I chose the right answer by eliminating other answers, however its bugging me a bit. I guess the absence of sincerity is just insincerity.
@cckiener142 This is one of those areas where you would have to make a reasonable assumption; looking at the other possible answers, the correct answer is the one that most closely resembles the conclusion you found within the stimulus. I agree with you, and did pause for a bit to ask myself "is insincere truely 'not sincere'?", but, at the end of the day, it was closest to what was said.
I am having a hard time understanding how the correct answer translates into the stimulus. In the stimulus, the conclusion is calling the CRITICISMS insincere, but the correct answer is calling POLITICIANS insincere.
The first sentence says "it is not uncommon for politicians to criticize..." and the second sentence (with the conclusion) says "such criticism." "Such criticism" is a referential phrase referring to the critics of the politicians from the previous sentences.
Also, if you take a step back from the LSAT of it all and just think about the statement, it's clear that, if one is saying something insincere, then they are being insincere. Don't overthink it.