I got it right. but I went 25 seconds over time. I think my biggest struggle I am consistently running into is time, and I hope I get some tips on this or it gets better naturally as I go on. For this one I was confident in my answer as soon as I saw it, but the verbal complexity of the stem and answer choices significantly slows me down in even getting to the answer choice I view as correct.
@sapalmeri Also, the wording, D says "is being insincere," making an assertion. A only says "should be regarded as insincere." The political scientist doesn't explicitly say people should regard differently.
I fully understood the stim and I got the question correct, however I found the explanation to be confusing and not really applicable given the time constraints of the LSAT. I think it would be really beneficial if you posted a video explaining your thought process of the question under standard time constraints, rather than posting a 8 minute in-depth explanation video
Something I am trying to wrap my head around is the little amount of time we will have on the Lsat to think through these questions and answer them when in the explanation videos it can take 5-10 minutes to explain the question and answers. Now granted, the explanation videos are going in depth to help us understand but I am wondering how were supposed to look at this question and comprehend all of the things discuss in the video within 2 ish minutes on the lsat. Sigh
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!
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.
121 comments
I got it right. but I went 25 seconds over time. I think my biggest struggle I am consistently running into is time, and I hope I get some tips on this or it gets better naturally as I go on. For this one I was confident in my answer as soon as I saw it, but the verbal complexity of the stem and answer choices significantly slows me down in even getting to the answer choice I view as correct.
I was stuck between A and D, and ultimately chose D because of the use of "a politician" instead of A's "people"
@sapalmeri I had a similar thought process
@sapalmeri Also, the wording, D says "is being insincere," making an assertion. A only says "should be regarded as insincere." The political scientist doesn't explicitly say people should regard differently.
I definitely thought too deep into this... the answer was my original choice but it seemed too simple. Got it for BR :)
I fully understood the stim and I got the question correct, however I found the explanation to be confusing and not really applicable given the time constraints of the LSAT. I think it would be really beneficial if you posted a video explaining your thought process of the question under standard time constraints, rather than posting a 8 minute in-depth explanation video
These conclusion questions are butter
Something I am trying to wrap my head around is the little amount of time we will have on the Lsat to think through these questions and answer them when in the explanation videos it can take 5-10 minutes to explain the question and answers. Now granted, the explanation videos are going in depth to help us understand but I am wondering how were supposed to look at this question and comprehend all of the things discuss in the video within 2 ish minutes on the lsat. Sigh
(got the question right so that's a plus)
this one was def a bit trickier but as I relied on the pattern of the Q and indicators it def helped me get the right answer within the right time
22 seconds to spare !!! :D
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.
@thr107 I am starting to feel the same!
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.