Some thing I learned outside of 7Sage that really helped me identify an author’s premise and conclusion on the LSAT is the “so” test.
How it works: Take two claims and place the word “so” between them. The “so” should create A logical sentence, with the first sentence giving support to the second.
Premise → so → Conclusion → usually makes logical sense.
Conclusion → so → Premise → usually does not make sense. (No Support)
If you are unsure, say the sentence out loud. The direction that sounds natural usually reveals the author’s conclusion.
Definitely one of the harder ones for MC hitherto. Once everything linked up the question was quite easy though, although i took quite some time to complete this.
Does anyone else notice that the Blind Review tells you if you got the answer wrong or not by the "Suggested for Blind Review" thing? It kind of defeats the purpose of Blind Review
I think it finally clicked for me on how to break down the stimuli. Not surprisingly, but I really tried to focus on how the narrator breaks down the stimuli (identifying structure and grammar) in a way that kind of mimics him. Talked to myself about why each word or phrase matters and who supports who. Saw the "thus" and almost went for it because well, it was the trap. But I always try to question myself, "okay is that really the conclusion?" and just glance over the rest of the stimuli to confirm my guess. I reminded myself to check each phrases structure and identify its importance (p or another c, or if it was a p, and another p). Which allowed me to figure out why the "wise" part was the main conc, and then used referential phrasing to answer A. Note it was a bit time consuming to break it down like that but it helped.
TIP: look out for Major premise/subconclusions! LSAT will try trick you to stop reading after u find that. Then theyll hide the MC at the end.
---------------------------------------------
MY APPROACH: I looked at the support relationship between the 2 conclusions presented. The one that didnt support (as a premise) for the other, was the Main Conclusion!
[i.e. the subconclusion - supported the main conclusion, but not vise versa, so i knew]
--------------------------------------------
I posted the above! for anyone who might need it. :) :) :)
Trust me i thought i wasnt good at these and i am someone whos usually confused. but referring back to the lesson like it was second hand saved me. the basics really are EVERYTHING!!
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.
131 comments
didn't fall for the trap and got it in 26 seconds lfg
FAHHH, i was on a roll but fell for the trap on this one
I fell for the trick :'(, but I now understand so I guess that's something
Getting better! One foot in front of the other...
Some thing I learned outside of 7Sage that really helped me identify an author’s premise and conclusion on the LSAT is the “so” test.
How it works: Take two claims and place the word “so” between them. The “so” should create A logical sentence, with the first sentence giving support to the second.
Premise → so → Conclusion → usually makes logical sense.
Conclusion → so → Premise → usually does not make sense. (No Support)
If you are unsure, say the sentence out loud. The direction that sounds natural usually reveals the author’s conclusion.
this one was tricky, but I got it right yayaya! :)
Got this one and all the ones before right because every time I come across a sentence that I suspect is the conclusion, I ask myself why?*
Doesn't have a strong why.
The last sentence has stronger evidence that answers the why.
Whoops picked A but got right on BR
I FELL FOR THE TRAP!!! AHHHHHHHH XD. Note: I got it on the BR :D
OH LORD, whyyyy I fell for the trick but learn and adapt and it will become easier
Definitely one of the harder ones for MC hitherto. Once everything linked up the question was quite easy though, although i took quite some time to complete this.
I fell for the trick crying emoji*
Did I think the conclusion indicator was too obvious? Yes
Did I contemplate that AC E might be too obvious and leading me to a trap? Yes
Despite this, did I fall for the trap? Yes 😭
Just when I gain a bit of confidence this test humbles me every single time lol
Does anyone else notice that the Blind Review tells you if you got the answer wrong or not by the "Suggested for Blind Review" thing? It kind of defeats the purpose of Blind Review
I fell for the trap, but I understand clearly now.
Got it right then fell for the trap on the blind review.
bruh
I almost chose E, but I recognized that green carnations being difficult to grow was a sub-conclusion, not the actual conclusion!!
I think it finally clicked for me on how to break down the stimuli. Not surprisingly, but I really tried to focus on how the narrator breaks down the stimuli (identifying structure and grammar) in a way that kind of mimics him. Talked to myself about why each word or phrase matters and who supports who. Saw the "thus" and almost went for it because well, it was the trap. But I always try to question myself, "okay is that really the conclusion?" and just glance over the rest of the stimuli to confirm my guess. I reminded myself to check each phrases structure and identify its importance (p or another c, or if it was a p, and another p). Which allowed me to figure out why the "wise" part was the main conc, and then used referential phrasing to answer A. Note it was a bit time consuming to break it down like that but it helped.
Fell for the trap originally as I was speeding through, but got it right with blind review.
bruh i am so mad i fell for that
PLEASE 7SAGE - its Paddy not Patty. sincerely, the Irish
I GOT THIS RIGHT (40seconds):
TIP: look out for Major premise/subconclusions! LSAT will try trick you to stop reading after u find that. Then theyll hide the MC at the end.
---------------------------------------------
MY APPROACH: I looked at the support relationship between the 2 conclusions presented. The one that didnt support (as a premise) for the other, was the Main Conclusion!
[i.e. the subconclusion - supported the main conclusion, but not vise versa, so i knew]
--------------------------------------------
I posted the above! for anyone who might need it. :) :) :)
Trust me i thought i wasnt good at these and i am someone whos usually confused. but referring back to the lesson like it was second hand saved me. the basics really are EVERYTHING!!
(its giving.... the karate kid movie... if ykyk)
NO WAY! I was just referencing the karate kid movie in terms of LSAT prep to my friend today. Wax on, wax off.
i fell for the trap :(
me too lmao. it's a learning process!
@urvaan me too, the video was literally speaking to my exact thought process LOL