At the top, you can click the little "quick view" button to see a drop-down of the question with all the answer choices! I like to do this before I watch the video:)
I swear I listen to him talk about the problem, and he runs through the steps and makes it so simple. In my head I say I got this then when an actual question comes, Im like what...?
Echoing similar thoughts from previous lessons, it would be great to have a 'quick view' functionality with these video lessons to try these questions on our own before watching the explanation!
I agree. It's really difficult to not get discouraged working through these when I can only see the answers once they've been checked off as incorrect, or listed as correst vs. incorrect.
I think a secondary approach that may be useful is to use these video lessons as a means of developing other skills, such as predicting the answer.
So, instead of having a quick view option, use these limited questions to read the stimulus, make one or two predictions of the answer choice and then play the video and see how close your prediction came to the correct answer.
The quick view is a great function, but I think these limited questions within the core curriculum should be used differently than a drill where you're actively placing yourself in a simulated environment to see how your skills are developing.
These questions are a time to slow way down, analyze the stimulus more than you have time to do on the test, and develop efficiencies that will undoubtedly transfer to test day.
#feedback I absolutely agree with this!! In other videos we get the full question prompt + MCs listed without annotations and that really helps with practicing.
We have received similar feedback from students regarding our CC V1 lessons, which is why we have introduced the "You Try" lessons. These lessons allow you to attempt the questions on your own before reviewing the lesson.
It's easier to avoid letting your own thoughts or opinions interfere when selecting an answer by reading each choice and mentally asking, "BUT WHY?" Then, turn back to the stimulus for support.
I really wish that the stimulus, question stem, and answers were just displayed at the start of the lesson so I could try to break it down myself first, then go to the review. Even jumping through the video, the answer is marked and there's too many scribbles to concentrate :(
Let me try to explain by going through the answer choices
a. There are very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe’s.
- although the stimulus implies of other design companies (by saying "ONE of the largest design companies"), the second part of the answer choice is kinda irrelevant. Like the stimulus does NOT at all mention other large design companies that make worse designs than Baxe's
b. Baxe does not have a near monopoly in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors.
- the stimulus makes no mention of other categories of interior design, only mentions a monopoly in corporate market. so it's kind of an irrelevant answer choice
c. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe.
- we can't conclude that just because other small companies won "prestigious awards" it means that MOSTLY other small companies make superior designs
d. At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are unaware that there are designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe.
- we don't know they're unaware of designs of small companies. Maybe they aren't and they just prefer the stability that large corps give. Maybe they are. We don't know so this can't be the right answer, the stimulus doesn't imply that they are unaware or aware
e. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market.
- this is the right answer. why? for one, we eliminated all the obvious wrong ones
but also because it talks about "existence of interior designs that are superior" which we can take as the small companies that have won prestigious awards (meaning they're the ones that are making superior designs, so this is implied) as not threatening the monopoly that Baxe has. Why does it not threaten Baxe's monopoly? Because the corporate managers ONLY give loans to large companies unlikely to go bankrupt like Baxe's
@middletondiane31162 E is correct because we know that regardless of awards won, Corporate Managers only care to work with very large companies (because they believe they won't go bankrupt). Baxe meets that condition of being a very large company. Therefore, we know its monopoly in the market is not threatened (despite smaller companies being superior in design and winning all the awards)
I understand E is the right answer, but it does seem like a bit of an assumption about the real world and our own biases to assume that just because small design companies won prestigious awards that makes them "superior." Especially since this could be a matter of opinion (what is or is not superior/inferior and on what basis we judge these things). There is nothing explicitly in the passage that says or even implies that those that win prestigious awards are "superior." So how exactly is this a reasonable assumption?
I agree with this. The support merely implies the awards for their corporate work and then compares it to Baxe. But the support doesn't elude to the scale of comparison between the two companies. The award could just as well have been won from a community business scale rather than a national business scale. We just don't know given the stimulus - which makes it difficult to rationalize "superiority" as a valid assumption. I understand it implies the comparison to each other for the support in the answer choices, but I worry this will trap me during other questions under the time constraint.
Exactly, it’s like: “do not make assumptions based on your understanding of the real world that are unreasonable. Rely on logic and information in stimulus.”
But also:”sometimes make assumptions based on your understanding of reality that have nothing to do with the stimulus.”
Right, I got the right one but was uncomfortable with that assumption as well. We don't even know if the corporation cares to enter competitions. We also don't know what the competitions' judgement criteria are, maybe they are competing on who can make the most innovative product, with overall quality being unconsidered. Kind of weird.
I like to think that C requires two assumptions whereas E requires only one assumption.
C: requires you to assume "several small companies" is enough "for the most part," and equivocate "awards" to being "superior." It could be the case that awards are only given to smaller firms for "fairness" or that they are equal in quality to large firms.
E: You only have to assume the last part of C again. This is one less assumption.
#feedback Can we please have all the answer choices presented before he begins working through each one? It's super helpful if we can try to test ourselves before he begins explaining.
D is a sneaky answer. However, it's not well supported, it's just one possible hypothesis.
E is more strongly supported because despite the other small interior designs winning more awards (correlates to being superior), that doesn't change the fact that corporate managers give contracts to large companies.
@eaoneil yeah, I think the logic chain was backwards, and i think it was just because of how the information was processed. Being a large chain and being unlikely to go bankrupt are sufficient to getting a contract. the rest of the video still stands though.
(not an expert, someone correct me if i'm wrong abt that)
@MnM See, I had this instinct too, but then I went back to a strategy that helps me establish what the necessary condition is and what the sufficient condition is. If you take the contrapositive of that /Contract --> /Unlikely bankrupt, this is untrue. This means if you do not receive a contract, they do not believe that you are unlikely to go bankrupt. There could be many reasons why you do not receive a contract. If you take the contrapositive of what was shown in the video /Unlikely bankrupt --> /Contract, this makes much more sense - If they believe you are likely to become bankrupt, then you will not receive a contract. To be honest, though, it is confusing, as without this video, I would have probably done Unlikely bankrupt --> Contract.
I am not understanding why the correct answer choice is E. Obviously because of conditional logic we know that the superior design ideas from small corporations are not going to threaten Baxe's monopoly, but how do we know that there aren't other large corporations that have superior design ideas and therefore could threaten the monopoly that Baxe has? Especially because the stimulus states that Baxe is only ONE of the largest companies in the corporate market. I would say this answer choice should just sit in the middle with the rest. Please help!
Yeah I think you are injecting your own outside assumption into this, you really have to only focus on what is provided in the text. What you are saying could very well be true, there just isnt anything in the passage stating anything like that.
I think personally that assuming that there are other large corporations that could threaten the monopoly Baxe has is over-assuming. In answer E, they don't necessarily mention "larger" companies; instead, they mention "interior designs that are superior." This could be a small or a large company. That's kind of how I thought about it when looking at E.
For MSS questions, is it recommended that we evaluate each answer choice? I recognize that may be wasteful, but I am wondering about a scenario where multiple choices provide strength for support but vary in their intensity of strength. Is this a rare phenomenon or something that happens at all, I.e. a weakly supported answer and a strongly supported answer rather than one supported answer and other unsupported choices.
It is an assumption, but the question depends on the tester realizing that it is a pretty reasonable assumption, especially in the context of the other answer choices (keep in mind that for MSS questions, the correct answer may not be the ideal answer)
I'm having trouble distinguishing the "We don't know this / we can't assume this" answer choices with "How do you know?" with other answer choices. Anyone else?? How should I know which way to assume?
@jennawiese I'm just hoping as I move through all the modules, the LSAT way of thinking will start to be more clear. I am getting a lot of drill questions wrong on the 'trap' type of answer
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
99 comments
I do wish in these lessons that we were shown all answer choices to try and get it correct before going into the explanation of the answers.
At the top, you can click the little "quick view" button to see a drop-down of the question with all the answer choices! I like to do this before I watch the video:)
agreed!
I understand the explanation but how the world do we do achieve this understanding during the LSAT under time constraints?
I swear I listen to him talk about the problem, and he runs through the steps and makes it so simple. In my head I say I got this then when an actual question comes, Im like what...?
you are not alone lol!
#help
Echoing similar thoughts from previous lessons, it would be great to have a 'quick view' functionality with these video lessons to try these questions on our own before watching the explanation!
+1 !
I agree. It's really difficult to not get discouraged working through these when I can only see the answers once they've been checked off as incorrect, or listed as correst vs. incorrect.
I think a secondary approach that may be useful is to use these video lessons as a means of developing other skills, such as predicting the answer.
So, instead of having a quick view option, use these limited questions to read the stimulus, make one or two predictions of the answer choice and then play the video and see how close your prediction came to the correct answer.
The quick view is a great function, but I think these limited questions within the core curriculum should be used differently than a drill where you're actively placing yourself in a simulated environment to see how your skills are developing.
These questions are a time to slow way down, analyze the stimulus more than you have time to do on the test, and develop efficiencies that will undoubtedly transfer to test day.
#feedback I agree
#feedback yes yes yes! couldn't agree more!
#feedback I absolutely agree with this!! In other videos we get the full question prompt + MCs listed without annotations and that really helps with practicing.
Hello everyone,
We appreciate your feedback.
We have received similar feedback from students regarding our CC V1 lessons, which is why we have introduced the "You Try" lessons. These lessons allow you to attempt the questions on your own before reviewing the lesson.
The "You Try" lesson is the one that follows: You Try - Bacterial Species - MSS Review
Please feel free to reach out if you have any additional inquiries.
This was such a weirdly worded question
It's easier to avoid letting your own thoughts or opinions interfere when selecting an answer by reading each choice and mentally asking, "BUT WHY?" Then, turn back to the stimulus for support.
I honestly got this one right by POE. It was hard to understand at first.
I really wish that the stimulus, question stem, and answers were just displayed at the start of the lesson so I could try to break it down myself first, then go to the review. Even jumping through the video, the answer is marked and there's too many scribbles to concentrate :(
@JessM you can click on the show question button next to the comments button to show the full question and try to give it a go from there!
@ps939 OMG I missed that whole button! tysm this is a god send
I do not see how this argument support answer choice E., in fact i am completely lost with this question choice
Let me try to explain by going through the answer choices
a. There are very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe’s.
- although the stimulus implies of other design companies (by saying "ONE of the largest design companies"), the second part of the answer choice is kinda irrelevant. Like the stimulus does NOT at all mention other large design companies that make worse designs than Baxe's
b. Baxe does not have a near monopoly in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors.
- the stimulus makes no mention of other categories of interior design, only mentions a monopoly in corporate market. so it's kind of an irrelevant answer choice
c. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe.
- we can't conclude that just because other small companies won "prestigious awards" it means that MOSTLY other small companies make superior designs
d. At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are unaware that there are designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe.
- we don't know they're unaware of designs of small companies. Maybe they aren't and they just prefer the stability that large corps give. Maybe they are. We don't know so this can't be the right answer, the stimulus doesn't imply that they are unaware or aware
e. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market.
- this is the right answer. why? for one, we eliminated all the obvious wrong ones
but also because it talks about "existence of interior designs that are superior" which we can take as the small companies that have won prestigious awards (meaning they're the ones that are making superior designs, so this is implied) as not threatening the monopoly that Baxe has. Why does it not threaten Baxe's monopoly? Because the corporate managers ONLY give loans to large companies unlikely to go bankrupt like Baxe's
@middletondiane31162 E is correct because we know that regardless of awards won, Corporate Managers only care to work with very large companies (because they believe they won't go bankrupt). Baxe meets that condition of being a very large company. Therefore, we know its monopoly in the market is not threatened (despite smaller companies being superior in design and winning all the awards)
@kingroseyyy when you stated the small companies won the prestigious awards, I was able to understand this so much better!
Thanks
Gosh, when you spell it out like this and it seems so clear, and then I do a drill...
I understand E is the right answer, but it does seem like a bit of an assumption about the real world and our own biases to assume that just because small design companies won prestigious awards that makes them "superior." Especially since this could be a matter of opinion (what is or is not superior/inferior and on what basis we judge these things). There is nothing explicitly in the passage that says or even implies that those that win prestigious awards are "superior." So how exactly is this a reasonable assumption?
I agree, I did choose E due to process of elimination but it still felt like a big jump that I was not confident in.
I agree with this. The support merely implies the awards for their corporate work and then compares it to Baxe. But the support doesn't elude to the scale of comparison between the two companies. The award could just as well have been won from a community business scale rather than a national business scale. We just don't know given the stimulus - which makes it difficult to rationalize "superiority" as a valid assumption. I understand it implies the comparison to each other for the support in the answer choices, but I worry this will trap me during other questions under the time constraint.
Exactly, it’s like: “do not make assumptions based on your understanding of the real world that are unreasonable. Rely on logic and information in stimulus.”
But also:”sometimes make assumptions based on your understanding of reality that have nothing to do with the stimulus.”
I guess it really depends on the question type.
Right, I got the right one but was uncomfortable with that assumption as well. We don't even know if the corporation cares to enter competitions. We also don't know what the competitions' judgement criteria are, maybe they are competing on who can make the most innovative product, with overall quality being unconsidered. Kind of weird.
Can I eliminate choice C on the basis that receiving an award does not necessarily mean that the designs are superior?
Isnt only a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
@FranciscoLee I had the same question that really confused me
I like to think that C requires two assumptions whereas E requires only one assumption.
C: requires you to assume "several small companies" is enough "for the most part," and equivocate "awards" to being "superior." It could be the case that awards are only given to smaller firms for "fairness" or that they are equal in quality to large firms.
E: You only have to assume the last part of C again. This is one less assumption.
#feedback Can we please have all the answer choices presented before he begins working through each one? It's super helpful if we can try to test ourselves before he begins explaining.
D is a sneaky answer. However, it's not well supported, it's just one possible hypothesis.
E is more strongly supported because despite the other small interior designs winning more awards (correlates to being superior), that doesn't change the fact that corporate managers give contracts to large companies.
Isnt "only" a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
@eaoneil yeah, I think the logic chain was backwards, and i think it was just because of how the information was processed. Being a large chain and being unlikely to go bankrupt are sufficient to getting a contract. the rest of the video still stands though.
(not an expert, someone correct me if i'm wrong abt that)
@eaoneil I noticed that too. It should have been:
Unlikely bankrupt -> Contract
Unlikely bankrupt -> Large companies
Therefore,
Unlikely bankrupt -> (large companies + contract)
@MnM See, I had this instinct too, but then I went back to a strategy that helps me establish what the necessary condition is and what the sufficient condition is. If you take the contrapositive of that /Contract --> /Unlikely bankrupt, this is untrue. This means if you do not receive a contract, they do not believe that you are unlikely to go bankrupt. There could be many reasons why you do not receive a contract. If you take the contrapositive of what was shown in the video /Unlikely bankrupt --> /Contract, this makes much more sense - If they believe you are likely to become bankrupt, then you will not receive a contract. To be honest, though, it is confusing, as without this video, I would have probably done Unlikely bankrupt --> Contract.
I am not understanding why the correct answer choice is E. Obviously because of conditional logic we know that the superior design ideas from small corporations are not going to threaten Baxe's monopoly, but how do we know that there aren't other large corporations that have superior design ideas and therefore could threaten the monopoly that Baxe has? Especially because the stimulus states that Baxe is only ONE of the largest companies in the corporate market. I would say this answer choice should just sit in the middle with the rest. Please help!
Yeah I think you are injecting your own outside assumption into this, you really have to only focus on what is provided in the text. What you are saying could very well be true, there just isnt anything in the passage stating anything like that.
I think personally that assuming that there are other large corporations that could threaten the monopoly Baxe has is over-assuming. In answer E, they don't necessarily mention "larger" companies; instead, they mention "interior designs that are superior." This could be a small or a large company. That's kind of how I thought about it when looking at E.
This is the first time I saw a question and could answer it right away.!!!!!! This question type so far seems easy. \(*0*)/
For MSS questions, is it recommended that we evaluate each answer choice? I recognize that may be wasteful, but I am wondering about a scenario where multiple choices provide strength for support but vary in their intensity of strength. Is this a rare phenomenon or something that happens at all, I.e. a weakly supported answer and a strongly supported answer rather than one supported answer and other unsupported choices.
the show question feature is the best thing ever created. its so fun to try to get the answer correctly, untimed, and then watching the breakdown.
How can you assume that just because they won an award, their designs are superior? Doesn't that taint two answer choices?
It is an assumption, but the question depends on the tester realizing that it is a pretty reasonable assumption, especially in the context of the other answer choices (keep in mind that for MSS questions, the correct answer may not be the ideal answer)
Thank you!!!
I'm having trouble distinguishing the "We don't know this / we can't assume this" answer choices with "How do you know?" with other answer choices. Anyone else?? How should I know which way to assume?
@jennawiese I'm just hoping as I move through all the modules, the LSAT way of thinking will start to be more clear. I am getting a lot of drill questions wrong on the 'trap' type of answer
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
If C had said "SOME designs produced by small companies..." instead of "most", could that have been correct?