i am a little confused about "necessary" indicating that future success -> acquire fundamental knowledge. would it not be a group 2 indicator meaning that the word following is the necessary condition? thus the relation should be swapped?
@LiviaLSAT The indicator works, but it is important to be aware of the grammar and what it is modifying. In this sentence, "necessary" modifies fundamental knowledge.
Example 2. ) Gaby's and Logan's comments provide most support for the claim that they disagree about:
Gaby: In school, children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance. This enables them to be most successful in their adult lives.
Logan: I disagree. Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.
Gaby agrees with: children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance.
Aka children should be on their own to learn their interests, they don't need much guidance from teachers.
Logan disagrees: Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.
Children need much guidance from teachers.
Answer is B. the extent to which teachers should direct schoolchildren's education
Why?
Both speakers seem to have a disagreement onto the extent of teachers involvement in children's education.
Gaby believes children need minimal guidance from teachers in their education, while Logan believes children need more guidance from teachers.
For questions like these I find it hard to map onto the spectrum of support using the MSS method for each person because the answer choices are the spectrum itself.
Does anybody have a method on how to map the answer choices onto the spectrum of support when the choices are spectrum themselves? I know JY says just pick a stance but I think that method will be very confusing. does anybody have any tips?
I was able to Quick View and get the right answer, but i feel like it took me longer than I'd like to think it through. I'm glad at this point to be moving in the right direction though!
Why do we need to map the conditional relationship? I'm just finding the conclusions of the two points and the disagreement points and finding the answer that matches the disagreement or agreements. If two answers are close, then delve into the specifics.
the way i see it is that if youre able to map out the conditional relationship, it strengthens your conditional logic abilities and sort of gives you a concrete grasp on the argument which makes the answer that much more evident
@aakash2003ch457 I agree with your point and the person's below. Like I understand the logic behind the mapping.. but realistically, we don't have time to do this on the actual exam.
I do not like when the answers are showed last. The answer choices should be showed during the explanation so we can work on it ourselves before you give the answer.
I read this as a first pass and immediately knew without working/modeling out the logic flow it was either A or B and chose A. I also ran it by ChatGPT (which we all know its models may not be 100% accurate) to then see how the AI solved it and it too came up with A as well. It had an interesting view, and now I second guess. If we understand this to be about the 'role' of a teacher v. a 'learning method', then I'd agree with 7sage.
Analyze A v. B for the answer choice
Why Option (a) Might Be Stronger:
While both answers capture important aspects of their disagreement, option (a) is more directly related to the specific disagreement about acquiring fundamental knowledge. Gaby and Logan's views revolve around how children learn best—through interest-driven exploration versus structured instruction.
Why Option (b) Is Also Valid:
Option (b) focuses on the teacher's role in guiding that process, which is a central theme in their dialogue. It points to the degree of direction teachers should provide, which is a valid interpretation of their disagreement.
Conclusion:
Best Answer: While both options can be defended, (a) is the more precise answer regarding the fundamental disagreement about the method of acquiring knowledge.
(b) is also correct in the context of their debate about the teacher's role but is less specific about the overall educational philosophy regarding knowledge acquisition.
Final Thoughts:
In an LSAT context, it's crucial to select the answer that best encapsulates the core disagreement. Therefore, while both (a) and (b) capture elements of their conversation, (a) is the most straightforward and directly related to the heart of the issue regarding how children should learn.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
How I make sense of why A is wrong is through an analogy. Let's say one parent doesn't believe in corporal punishment (Gaby) and another says it teaches kids how to act (Logan).
But if I was hit with a belt, would that (in and of itself) teach me some fundamental knowledge? No.
We know which way each parent would direct behavior, but the question we're answering is not about how that direction allows knowledge to be acquired.
This is particularly true for Gabby's argument in this analogy, because she doesn't talk about what the hands-off approach is supposed to teach you. Being successful =/= acquiring knowledge
This is how I came to the conclusion that answer choice A was wrong.
Gaby argues that, in order to be successful in life, children must follow their passions and teachers must facilitate their path. She doesn't say anything in regard to this fundamental knowledge that answer A seems to emphasize. If a kid wanted to be a dancer, and the teacher is just there to support and offer minimal guidance, then where do the other areas fall? When will the kid learn math, literature, history, biology, and all the other topics that are part of this "fundamental knowledge"? She doesn't specify.
Logan, on the other hand, argues that only the teaching of fundamental knowledge can make a kid successful, and only teachers who focus on providing a disciplined and systematic instruction can help them. He does have something to say about it. But the lack of context from Gaby make this impossible to answer.
answer choice (A) talks about "the way", which can incorporate MANY facets. how many hours a day, how many months a year, how much discipline, how much screen time vs. reading books. it's very general. these two people would definitely disagree about "the way", "the best way", "the only way" to teach kids. but what, specifically, would they disagree about? are they upset about the fact that kids shouldn't have a 3 month break for the summer? maybe something else?
if you read the stimulus by itself, you're brain should be screaming "this person wants discipline, this one doesn't" and answer (B), in my mind, best encapsulated that whereas (A) was more broad.
i have also used GPT to get some guidance, and it's hard to disagree here that both (A) and (B) are decent choices. on this test, you have to throw away some of your outside knowledge and common sense (at times). many LSAT questions are more of a "game" than they are "real world arguments".
Yes but the issue here the disagreement in answer choice A) isn't "the method of acquiring knowledge” it regarding how children gain a specific type of knowledge, “fundamental knowledge”. B explicitly takes a stance on this while A does not. A only discusses knowledge to be successful.
For all we know, fundamental knowledge isn’t required to be successful. Do you need to know fundamental knowledge like what a subject and a predicate is to become a successful instagram influencer? Probably not.
@jlsmbahttps://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/introduction-to-logical-reasoning/one-right-answer-choice 7Sage covers this themselves, but it's important for anybody reading this to also recognize that there is ALWAYS a reason for a wrong answer to be wrong, it's not middling, and it's not potentially correct. If we're reviewing with a question, it has a clear cut answer. It may not be easy to find, but one exists, and it has a strong reason to exist!
When I pause, the screen disappears. Is this happening to anyone else? I pause it so I can take my time and read the passage but it just disappears. Can this be fixed?
its just a glitch, it happens to me sometimes too, I found a loophole around it though. When you pause and the screen goes blank, scroll down so the video is off ur page and then scroll back up and it should show now. I dont know how but it works lol
Click 'quick view' its easy to miss as it's so small. This option can be found under the lesson time. I think 7Sage just recently made this option available for all questions.
#feedback In situations like this where we go through and dissect a question, I find it more helpful to have the question be displayed unadulterated, and in full prior to analysis. I find that it helps if I can take my own unofficial attempt at the question before we dive in. In this example specifically, I could very well see myself being duped by answer choice A, but when I don't get a chance to answer it on my own, like in this video, answer choice A never has a chance to be potentially correct, and is obviously wrong.
Super valid! I prefer the same. You can see the full unadulterated question by clicking "Quick View" with the small magnifying glass symbol above the video. From there you can fully attempt the question before going into JY's analysis :) Hope that helps!
re: the explanation on why option A is a trap — wouldn't saying that fundamentals can only be acquired by disciplined instruction also insinuate that it is also the best way?
For PAI question in which the stance of the speaker is NOT on SURFACE lvl, it is ALWAYS the case that within their statements there will be NO conclusion and that's why we must do MSS on the premises (claims) being made within their statement. Then, once we have inferred the conclusion that is what we use to see the disagreement/agreement with the other speaker? #feedback #help
For those stating that they wish they could see the whole answer before doing the video, the URL provides with the test number, section, and question. To sign up for these lessons you need a Law Hub subscription. You can always look it up that way first and then do the video.
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.
60 comments
Crazy to see how the CR just naturally translates to lawgic in my brain at this point.
im not understanding why we chain conditional for a question like this, i got it right without doing that breakdown
@shrooots same honestly I feel like it makes you overthink the problem
i am a little confused about "necessary" indicating that future success -> acquire fundamental knowledge. would it not be a group 2 indicator meaning that the word following is the necessary condition? thus the relation should be swapped?
@LiviaLSAT The indicator works, but it is important to be aware of the grammar and what it is modifying. In this sentence, "necessary" modifies fundamental knowledge.
Example 2. ) Gaby's and Logan's comments provide most support for the claim that they disagree about:
Gaby: In school, children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance. This enables them to be most successful in their adult lives.
Logan: I disagree. Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.
Gaby agrees with: children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance.
Aka children should be on their own to learn their interests, they don't need much guidance from teachers.
Logan disagrees: Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.
Children need much guidance from teachers.
Answer is B. the extent to which teachers should direct schoolchildren's education
Why?
Both speakers seem to have a disagreement onto the extent of teachers involvement in children's education.
Gaby believes children need minimal guidance from teachers in their education, while Logan believes children need more guidance from teachers.
I got the answer right, but I am somewhat hazy on why A isn't strongly implied for Gaby since she goes on to discuss successful adult lives
Yikes.. this one got me... most of the answers are pretty good answers haha
Teach them instead of handing out a freakin packet yo!
Gah, I initially picked A because I got trapped by the "fundamental knowledge" bit. Glad to see I picked the right answer after some more thinking!
why is future success necessary for acquiring fundamental knowledge (fs --> afk) and not the other way around?
@b_farmer12
the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success
The sentence explicitly says that fundamental knowledge is necessary for future success.
Lawgic: fs -> afk
"fs" on the left is sufficiency and "afk" on the right is necessary.
For questions like these I find it hard to map onto the spectrum of support using the MSS method for each person because the answer choices are the spectrum itself.
Does anybody have a method on how to map the answer choices onto the spectrum of support when the choices are spectrum themselves? I know JY says just pick a stance but I think that method will be very confusing. does anybody have any tips?
I was able to Quick View and get the right answer, but i feel like it took me longer than I'd like to think it through. I'm glad at this point to be moving in the right direction though!
Why do we need to map the conditional relationship? I'm just finding the conclusions of the two points and the disagreement points and finding the answer that matches the disagreement or agreements. If two answers are close, then delve into the specifics.
the way i see it is that if youre able to map out the conditional relationship, it strengthens your conditional logic abilities and sort of gives you a concrete grasp on the argument which makes the answer that much more evident
@aakash2003ch457 I agree with your point and the person's below. Like I understand the logic behind the mapping.. but realistically, we don't have time to do this on the actual exam.
This seems so simple to me, yet the MSS questions were getting me!!
Same
I do not like when the answers are showed last. The answer choices should be showed during the explanation so we can work on it ourselves before you give the answer.
I agree, but you can use the "quick view" feature at the top to do the problem yourself before you watch the video.
Thanks🫶🏽
@ronniseellison I'm not seeing a "quick view" option in 2025 - am I just missing it?
@BOBLOBLAW its the little eye icon that says 'Show question' on the right of the "discussion" button
I read this as a first pass and immediately knew without working/modeling out the logic flow it was either A or B and chose A. I also ran it by ChatGPT (which we all know its models may not be 100% accurate) to then see how the AI solved it and it too came up with A as well. It had an interesting view, and now I second guess. If we understand this to be about the 'role' of a teacher v. a 'learning method', then I'd agree with 7sage.
Analyze A v. B for the answer choice
Why Option (a) Might Be Stronger:
While both answers capture important aspects of their disagreement, option (a) is more directly related to the specific disagreement about acquiring fundamental knowledge. Gaby and Logan's views revolve around how children learn best—through interest-driven exploration versus structured instruction.
Why Option (b) Is Also Valid:
Option (b) focuses on the teacher's role in guiding that process, which is a central theme in their dialogue. It points to the degree of direction teachers should provide, which is a valid interpretation of their disagreement.
Conclusion:
Best Answer: While both options can be defended, (a) is the more precise answer regarding the fundamental disagreement about the method of acquiring knowledge.
(b) is also correct in the context of their debate about the teacher's role but is less specific about the overall educational philosophy regarding knowledge acquisition.
Final Thoughts:
In an LSAT context, it's crucial to select the answer that best encapsulates the core disagreement. Therefore, while both (a) and (b) capture elements of their conversation, (a) is the most straightforward and directly related to the heart of the issue regarding how children should learn.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
How I make sense of why A is wrong is through an analogy. Let's say one parent doesn't believe in corporal punishment (Gaby) and another says it teaches kids how to act (Logan).
But if I was hit with a belt, would that (in and of itself) teach me some fundamental knowledge? No.
We know which way each parent would direct behavior, but the question we're answering is not about how that direction allows knowledge to be acquired.
This is particularly true for Gabby's argument in this analogy, because she doesn't talk about what the hands-off approach is supposed to teach you. Being successful =/= acquiring knowledge
Maybe a bad example but it helped me lollll.
This is how I came to the conclusion that answer choice A was wrong.
Gaby argues that, in order to be successful in life, children must follow their passions and teachers must facilitate their path. She doesn't say anything in regard to this fundamental knowledge that answer A seems to emphasize. If a kid wanted to be a dancer, and the teacher is just there to support and offer minimal guidance, then where do the other areas fall? When will the kid learn math, literature, history, biology, and all the other topics that are part of this "fundamental knowledge"? She doesn't specify.
Logan, on the other hand, argues that only the teaching of fundamental knowledge can make a kid successful, and only teachers who focus on providing a disciplined and systematic instruction can help them. He does have something to say about it. But the lack of context from Gaby make this impossible to answer.
answer choice (A) talks about "the way", which can incorporate MANY facets. how many hours a day, how many months a year, how much discipline, how much screen time vs. reading books. it's very general. these two people would definitely disagree about "the way", "the best way", "the only way" to teach kids. but what, specifically, would they disagree about? are they upset about the fact that kids shouldn't have a 3 month break for the summer? maybe something else?
if you read the stimulus by itself, you're brain should be screaming "this person wants discipline, this one doesn't" and answer (B), in my mind, best encapsulated that whereas (A) was more broad.
i have also used GPT to get some guidance, and it's hard to disagree here that both (A) and (B) are decent choices. on this test, you have to throw away some of your outside knowledge and common sense (at times). many LSAT questions are more of a "game" than they are "real world arguments".
Yes but the issue here the disagreement in answer choice A) isn't "the method of acquiring knowledge” it regarding how children gain a specific type of knowledge, “fundamental knowledge”. B explicitly takes a stance on this while A does not. A only discusses knowledge to be successful.
For all we know, fundamental knowledge isn’t required to be successful. Do you need to know fundamental knowledge like what a subject and a predicate is to become a successful instagram influencer? Probably not.
@jlsmba https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/introduction-to-logical-reasoning/one-right-answer-choice 7Sage covers this themselves, but it's important for anybody reading this to also recognize that there is ALWAYS a reason for a wrong answer to be wrong, it's not middling, and it's not potentially correct. If we're reviewing with a question, it has a clear cut answer. It may not be easy to find, but one exists, and it has a strong reason to exist!
wow i probably would have gotten this wrong smh
I didnt feel the need to make an inference for logan, I thought that he already did say that?
When I pause, the screen disappears. Is this happening to anyone else? I pause it so I can take my time and read the passage but it just disappears. Can this be fixed?
its just a glitch, it happens to me sometimes too, I found a loophole around it though. When you pause and the screen goes blank, scroll down so the video is off ur page and then scroll back up and it should show now. I dont know how but it works lol
I wish we could answer the question before it gets dissected. Feels like missed practice.
Click 'quick view' its easy to miss as it's so small. This option can be found under the lesson time. I think 7Sage just recently made this option available for all questions.
Wow, that is incredibly helpful. Thank you.
This is SO helpful!! Thank you so much.
time stamp 3:23 - J.Y. says 'only' is a group 3 indicator but it is listed under group 2 indicators #feedback
I am pretty sure he just made a mistake and he meant 2 cz he did not negate sufficient, just put it in necessary...
thank you!
#feedback In situations like this where we go through and dissect a question, I find it more helpful to have the question be displayed unadulterated, and in full prior to analysis. I find that it helps if I can take my own unofficial attempt at the question before we dive in. In this example specifically, I could very well see myself being duped by answer choice A, but when I don't get a chance to answer it on my own, like in this video, answer choice A never has a chance to be potentially correct, and is obviously wrong.
!
agreed
Super valid! I prefer the same. You can see the full unadulterated question by clicking "Quick View" with the small magnifying glass symbol above the video. From there you can fully attempt the question before going into JY's analysis :) Hope that helps!
Agreed!!
re: the explanation on why option A is a trap — wouldn't saying that fundamentals can only be acquired by disciplined instruction also insinuate that it is also the best way?
exactly what I was thinking. im still confused #help
For PAI question in which the stance of the speaker is NOT on SURFACE lvl, it is ALWAYS the case that within their statements there will be NO conclusion and that's why we must do MSS on the premises (claims) being made within their statement. Then, once we have inferred the conclusion that is what we use to see the disagreement/agreement with the other speaker? #feedback #help
Go back to showing the entire question before we play the video so we can digest where we went wrong.
For those stating that they wish they could see the whole answer before doing the video, the URL provides with the test number, section, and question. To sign up for these lessons you need a Law Hub subscription. You can always look it up that way first and then do the video.