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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
did anyone else have a hard time even understanding what the stimulus meant? anyone have any tips of how to understand stimulus' with more abstract, layered concepts like this one?
I can easily identify the conclusion based on the keywords. After I recognize this, should I stop trying to analyze the rest of the stimulus for timing purposes?
I believe I've identified another reason for eliminating answer B that is--to me at least--much more obvious than the reasoning the explanation offered: the stimulus specifies "such criticism" as that of "a politician criticizing his or her political opponents." Answer B uses as its subject the very general "sincere critics," meaning these critics could be politicians or they could be members of the general public, or pundits. The stimulus only tells us that such criticisms coming from politicians and directed at their opponents are insincere, meaning that there could in fact be sincere criticism of politicians on these grounds coming from another group (e.g. general public, pundits, etc.). Does my logic here hold water?
This question choice was tricky, I narrowed it down to answers A and D. However, when I looked back on the answer choices I was able to distinguish what I thought was the right answer (D) compared to A because A used people and D used a politician. Once I watched the video, the logic was also the same to break down the wrong answers. I am doing very well in this chapter analyzing the context, mc, and the support.
I got this question right and the reasoning behind why the other options of a,b, and c were wrong were different than his reasoning of why they were wrong. Is that fine?
also can someone explain better why that was his specific reasoning for being wrong? because I'm just not sure I understand the way he explained why each of those were wrong using his reasoning.
A. I said was wrong because "promote" stuck out to me. Just because someone is critizing their opponent doesn't necessarily mean they were intending to promote their political agenda they could be doing it just because they're mean and want to (it was to strong in a way for me).
B. I said was wrong because, in a way it was also to strong because how do we know if a critic is focusing their criticism on agendas that are being promoted in other ways besides "incomprehensible manner/muddled" which can be sincere rather than insincere.
C. I said was wrong because it has no relevance to the stimulus
#feedback I am doing very well analyzing the stim, and getting the right answers. Its just taking me a very long time, I go through each option presented and make sure I understand why it is wrong and/or correct. ( add overthinking ) Specifically, I got this question correct and understand why it is correct, but it took me 3:47 and the target time is 1:17. Also, the previous question, I also got right, but it took me 5 minutes. what is working for you ones hitting time, around time, or even under! any advice.
Is it wrong to stop reading once you find the conclusion? I find it easy to just go straight to the answers once I find the conclusion to avoid the rest of the argument confuse me with extra information.
could you add speed modifiers for each video? I usually watch in 1.4 x speed but I wanted to slow it down for this one, and this video (and many others) dont allow me to change speeds.
I feel like I'm being baited by having gotten every question right so far and being 10-15 seconds quicker than the target. Are these just easy questions? I mean, half of them have been marked as medium.
Even the other lessons that don't have this little module to put in answers and do a blind review, I look at the "Quick View" and make a decision before I watch the video.
I'm genuinely confused given that my diagnostic was 146. Help?
In the written explanation of the question, the last paragraph states, "Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be understood."
When in fact it should be: Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be MISunderstood.
That is what answer E is stating. Alternatively, change the 'cannot' to 'can' and leave the other as understood.
Unless I'm wrong, if so I'm sure someone will point it out, I'm doing this early in the morning with no coffee where I am.
#feedback Difficult question, took me longer than the recommended but J.Y explained it well, nice one!
3
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.
90 comments
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
did anyone else have a hard time even understanding what the stimulus meant? anyone have any tips of how to understand stimulus' with more abstract, layered concepts like this one?
I can easily identify the conclusion based on the keywords. After I recognize this, should I stop trying to analyze the rest of the stimulus for timing purposes?
I believe I've identified another reason for eliminating answer B that is--to me at least--much more obvious than the reasoning the explanation offered: the stimulus specifies "such criticism" as that of "a politician criticizing his or her political opponents." Answer B uses as its subject the very general "sincere critics," meaning these critics could be politicians or they could be members of the general public, or pundits. The stimulus only tells us that such criticisms coming from politicians and directed at their opponents are insincere, meaning that there could in fact be sincere criticism of politicians on these grounds coming from another group (e.g. general public, pundits, etc.). Does my logic here hold water?
I gaslit myself to switch from D to E during blind review. How do I stop doubting my initial answer.
This question choice was tricky, I narrowed it down to answers A and D. However, when I looked back on the answer choices I was able to distinguish what I thought was the right answer (D) compared to A because A used people and D used a politician. Once I watched the video, the logic was also the same to break down the wrong answers. I am doing very well in this chapter analyzing the context, mc, and the support.
I got this question right and the reasoning behind why the other options of a,b, and c were wrong were different than his reasoning of why they were wrong. Is that fine?
also can someone explain better why that was his specific reasoning for being wrong? because I'm just not sure I understand the way he explained why each of those were wrong using his reasoning.
A. I said was wrong because "promote" stuck out to me. Just because someone is critizing their opponent doesn't necessarily mean they were intending to promote their political agenda they could be doing it just because they're mean and want to (it was to strong in a way for me).
B. I said was wrong because, in a way it was also to strong because how do we know if a critic is focusing their criticism on agendas that are being promoted in other ways besides "incomprehensible manner/muddled" which can be sincere rather than insincere.
C. I said was wrong because it has no relevance to the stimulus
#feedback
#feedback I am doing very well analyzing the stim, and getting the right answers. Its just taking me a very long time, I go through each option presented and make sure I understand why it is wrong and/or correct. ( add overthinking ) Specifically, I got this question correct and understand why it is correct, but it took me 3:47 and the target time is 1:17. Also, the previous question, I also got right, but it took me 5 minutes. what is working for you ones hitting time, around time, or even under! any advice.
I eliminated C because I did not like the word "confusingly"
Is it wrong to stop reading once you find the conclusion? I find it easy to just go straight to the answers once I find the conclusion to avoid the rest of the argument confuse me with extra information.
#feedback
could you add speed modifiers for each video? I usually watch in 1.4 x speed but I wanted to slow it down for this one, and this video (and many others) dont allow me to change speeds.
What is the ideal time for me to answer these questions?
I feel like I'm being baited by having gotten every question right so far and being 10-15 seconds quicker than the target. Are these just easy questions? I mean, half of them have been marked as medium.
Even the other lessons that don't have this little module to put in answers and do a blind review, I look at the "Quick View" and make a decision before I watch the video.
I'm genuinely confused given that my diagnostic was 146. Help?
Are sub-conclusions always positioned after main conclusions?
In the written explanation of the question, the last paragraph states, "Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be understood."
When in fact it should be: Here, the answer choice asserts that the political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be MISunderstood.
That is what answer E is stating. Alternatively, change the 'cannot' to 'can' and leave the other as understood.
Unless I'm wrong, if so I'm sure someone will point it out, I'm doing this early in the morning with no coffee where I am.
#feedback
#feedback Difficult question, took me longer than the recommended but J.Y explained it well, nice one!