Does anyone else get the question correct and then the explanation confuses them? Like, I can read the question and identify the conditional logic and so forth but when watching the video it confuses me because my processing isn’t the same. Idk, just putting it out there lol.
I'd say that sometimes the way the explanation is framed can be more confusing than the original question, yes.
I usually skim the explanation video if I got the question correct, just to verify that my reasoning is sound, but as long as you feel you understood the question and why the other answers were wrong, I don't think it's always going to be necessary to stick around for the entire 9 minute explanation video. I only watch the whole thing if I feel I had to make an educated guess at the question, or if I got it wrong. If I was confident in my answer and it was correct, I usually move along.
(granted, I am taking the LSAT in 6 weeks so I don't have much choice other than to keep moving, LOL.)
My issue is not reading closely enough even though I'm taking my time. I completely skipped over B and what it said for some reason and thought it said something different, I feel dumb lol.
@AlizaGGG Makes sense. Thanks, I couldn't figure out the Lawgic for this one. From what I can see your diagram works. The explanation video didn't clear it up.
@AlizaGGG I used group 3 conditional logic as well. I was following your outline up until the part you put:
"for X /ACE", and I didn't understand what that meant.
However, I did acknowledge that:
"----------"
X(BDR) meant "therefore, species X will develop greater resistance"
But I recognize the discussion text box has limitations when trying to illustrate membership using Lawgic. I would've written it "species x(/ACE)" similarly to how you wrote "species x(BDR)".
Then when translating back to English, I would've written:
For species X has membership in not being completely eliminated by antibiotics (why??) because the stimulus tells us. Therefore, species X will develop greater resistance.
No discredit to you! I wanted to adapt some of your breakdown to make it easier for me (or someone thinking like) to understand. Because I initially used group 3 conditional logic. I completely forgot about applying rule/ exception.
3 minutes over, but I got it right!! My timing sucks atm, but I think that if I can just drill these types over and over again I should be able to get my timing more reasonable. Practice makes (almost) perfect!!
I was really confused about why E is wrong here but I think I figured out a way to explain it in straightforward terms:
My top choices for this were B and E; B because it is directly supported by the stim, no assumptions, inferences, leaps etc. needed.
For E to be correct, we would have to assume that it has been at least a few years since the antibiotics were used against bacteria X. If this was clearly provided as part of option E or if we make this assumption (bit of a stretch for this kind of question), E would also be a correct answer.
However, B gives us the exactly what we need (all claims fully supported by stim) without having us make any assumptions, thus making it the most correct answer. Essentially, if there are two options where one requires no assumptions and another is almost right but leaves some gaps open for us to fill in, then the former is the best choice.
Does this make sense? Please let me know if I’m thinking about this in the wrong way!
I eliminated (E) because based on the stimulus, it doesn’t state that any antibiotic was actually used on bacteria X. It could just be assuming “no single antibiotic now on the market is powerful enough”. E) makes the jump to say they have been used and bacteria as become resistant to some without a clear claim in the stimulus
So Im trying to get quicker at realizing what the conditions are, but ultimately I am finding the answer much quicker with a process of elimination, still taking at least a minute, minute 20, but that is helping for some of these MBT and MSS questions.
As someone with a bio degree, I always make so many assumptions with these science questions because in my head I'm like "well yeah this is obviously true", I'm creating my own biases based on learned information.
I have to remember to be very objective in reading questions.
its very strange for this problem, for somehow I think R -> /E is also correct, which contradict /E -> R, if it became stronger then it must mean that it did not kill it completely, if you Eliminate it completely how will it still grow stronger. will you explain please.
yess. How i thought of it was that, what if in the beginning, it was already naturally resistant to the current antibiotics? so that made E wrong. The comparison from now vs before is what kept that answer choice bad.
@DominicCruse you have to walk before you run so I wouldnt be too worried about it. At this point we are supposed to focus on accuracy... speed will come in after during practice tests. Better 7min and right than 1min and wrong (at this stage).
I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.
I feel kind of silly not just recognizing this as a "rule/exception to the rule" conditional type argument, but I did get the right answer and then in the blind review used lawgic to check the validity.
Using the indicator word "unless" to negate the sufficient, I got "if an antibiotic doesn't eliminate the species, the species becomes more resistant within a few years"
/eliminate → resistance
and with its contrapositive (just for funsies):
/resistance → eliminate
Then using the indicator word "no" in the second sentence, I got "if an antibiotic is currently on the market, it cannot eliminate species X"
current → /eliminate
contrapositive:
eliminate → current
Now if we connect some of these, we get:
current → /eliminate → resistance
Which is exactly what B says (current → resistance).
I feel like I'm not consciously doing this whole thing when I'm under the time constraint, so I'm not sure if I'm just lucking out or if I just know deep down in my heart of hearts what to do lol
I made the same exact mistakes as you did, with the one difference being that I kicked one idea up to the domain (bacterial species). If, maybe I would have thought a little bit harder about it, I would have been able to come up with the rule/exception law.
I'm slightly disappointed by this, especially since my translation was completely and absolutely wrong.
Is anybody else getting these questions right without mapping out the conditional logic? I worry that this might hurt me in the future, but it is quicker for me to read through the answer choices and pick the right answer without thinking about sufficient/necessary conditions.
@ErikaMartinez99 My understanding of the course is that mapping it out is supposed to help develop the instinct needed. There's nowhere near enough time to map out every question on the test. I'm in a similar spot and I think we both are able to instinctually hunt the correct answer.
114 comments
I chose B then let E trick me
same. its so annoying bc it seems so clear when JY reviews it but I dont get to that conclusion in the moment. ughhhhhh
Me too, man
@ajahedwards99726 I was so sure B was correct, did not read E.
Second guessing myself is killing my timing, the best way to gain confidence is reps reps reps reps reps!!!
dude i need to stop second guessing i was between B and E
@ps939 SAME
Does anyone else get the question correct and then the explanation confuses them? Like, I can read the question and identify the conditional logic and so forth but when watching the video it confuses me because my processing isn’t the same. Idk, just putting it out there lol.
I'd say that sometimes the way the explanation is framed can be more confusing than the original question, yes.
I usually skim the explanation video if I got the question correct, just to verify that my reasoning is sound, but as long as you feel you understood the question and why the other answers were wrong, I don't think it's always going to be necessary to stick around for the entire 9 minute explanation video. I only watch the whole thing if I feel I had to make an educated guess at the question, or if I got it wrong. If I was confident in my answer and it was correct, I usually move along.
(granted, I am taking the LSAT in 6 weeks so I don't have much choice other than to keep moving, LOL.)
I hope this is helpful -- I used process of elimination.
A: we don't know this will happen
B: correct answer
C: speculation and not relevant to the premise
D: requires an assumption and speculation
E: we don't know what has been used against it in the past.
light
@yesterdayseeker work
@MissProsecutor no reaction
My issue is not reading closely enough even though I'm taking my time. I completely skipped over B and what it said for some reason and thought it said something different, I feel dumb lol.
I used conditional logic group 3 with the unless and treated the conditional as single concept.
Bacteria Develop Resistance (BDR)
Antibiotic completly eliminated the species (ACE)
using the uncless group 3 I picked one and negated it and made it sufficient
/BDR--> AEC
take the contrastive
/AEC--> BDR
for X /AEC
-------
X(BDR)
for X species of bacteria, it will develop antibiotic resistance. t
then I went hunting and (B) was by the closest.
I got the right answer but I'm worried I just landed there accidentally. can someone check mu logic?
@AlizaGGG Makes sense. Thanks, I couldn't figure out the Lawgic for this one. From what I can see your diagram works. The explanation video didn't clear it up.
@AlizaGGG I used group 3 conditional logic as well. I was following your outline up until the part you put:
"for X /ACE", and I didn't understand what that meant.
However, I did acknowledge that:
"----------"
X(BDR) meant "therefore, species X will develop greater resistance"
But I recognize the discussion text box has limitations when trying to illustrate membership using Lawgic. I would've written it "species x(/ACE)" similarly to how you wrote "species x(BDR)".
Then when translating back to English, I would've written:
For species X has membership in not being completely eliminated by antibiotics (why??) because the stimulus tells us. Therefore, species X will develop greater resistance.
No discredit to you! I wanted to adapt some of your breakdown to make it easier for me (or someone thinking like) to understand. Because I initially used group 3 conditional logic. I completely forgot about applying rule/ exception.
@AlizaGGG I did the same thing. My lawgic looked like this:
NOT develop R(resistance) > Eliminate
Contrapositive to:
NOT eliminate > Develop resistance
Sometimes i like to spell out NOT instead of slash bc it helps me understand my notes better.
3 minutes over, but I got it right!! My timing sucks atm, but I think that if I can just drill these types over and over again I should be able to get my timing more reasonable. Practice makes (almost) perfect!!
i definitely see an improvement in how i approach these
i fell for e ;-;
I was really confused about why E is wrong here but I think I figured out a way to explain it in straightforward terms:
My top choices for this were B and E; B because it is directly supported by the stim, no assumptions, inferences, leaps etc. needed.
For E to be correct, we would have to assume that it has been at least a few years since the antibiotics were used against bacteria X. If this was clearly provided as part of option E or if we make this assumption (bit of a stretch for this kind of question), E would also be a correct answer.
However, B gives us the exactly what we need (all claims fully supported by stim) without having us make any assumptions, thus making it the most correct answer. Essentially, if there are two options where one requires no assumptions and another is almost right but leaves some gaps open for us to fill in, then the former is the best choice.
Does this make sense? Please let me know if I’m thinking about this in the wrong way!
Definitely makes sense! This was my thought process too
I just need to slow down and red the stimulus to understand what I am reading.
I eliminated (E) because based on the stimulus, it doesn’t state that any antibiotic was actually used on bacteria X. It could just be assuming “no single antibiotic now on the market is powerful enough”. E) makes the jump to say they have been used and bacteria as become resistant to some without a clear claim in the stimulus
So Im trying to get quicker at realizing what the conditions are, but ultimately I am finding the answer much quicker with a process of elimination, still taking at least a minute, minute 20, but that is helping for some of these MBT and MSS questions.
As someone with a bio degree, I always make so many assumptions with these science questions because in my head I'm like "well yeah this is obviously true", I'm creating my own biases based on learned information.
I have to remember to be very objective in reading questions.
Isn't this just very simply:
/E -> R
/E
-----------
R
its very strange for this problem, for somehow I think R -> /E is also correct, which contradict /E -> R, if it became stronger then it must mean that it did not kill it completely, if you Eliminate it completely how will it still grow stronger. will you explain please.
ya that's the exact same thing I did. Feel like it works better this way.
Another reason E is wrong: we have no idea if any antibiotics were even used against bacteria X anyway
yess. How i thought of it was that, what if in the beginning, it was already naturally resistant to the current antibiotics? so that made E wrong. The comparison from now vs before is what kept that answer choice bad.
I thought virulent meant resistant so I picked D! ;(
But I clearly see why it is B. So that's a good thing....
same
That went right over my head!! WHY??? I always get it after the fact, smh!
damn... I should have gotten that.
I got the right answer, however I was way over the target time of 1 minute. Specifically, it took me 7 minutes to get this right.
At this point in the course, how concerned should I be that it took me this long to get the answer?
@DominicCruse you have to walk before you run so I wouldnt be too worried about it. At this point we are supposed to focus on accuracy... speed will come in after during practice tests. Better 7min and right than 1min and wrong (at this stage).
I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.
For me too. So glad that framework exist and I was able to see why B was the correct answer right away.
I feel kind of silly not just recognizing this as a "rule/exception to the rule" conditional type argument, but I did get the right answer and then in the blind review used lawgic to check the validity.
Using the indicator word "unless" to negate the sufficient, I got "if an antibiotic doesn't eliminate the species, the species becomes more resistant within a few years"
/eliminate → resistance
and with its contrapositive (just for funsies):
/resistance → eliminate
Then using the indicator word "no" in the second sentence, I got "if an antibiotic is currently on the market, it cannot eliminate species X"
current → /eliminate
contrapositive:
eliminate → current
Now if we connect some of these, we get:
current → /eliminate → resistance
Which is exactly what B says (current → resistance).
I feel like I'm not consciously doing this whole thing when I'm under the time constraint, so I'm not sure if I'm just lucking out or if I just know deep down in my heart of hearts what to do lol
I made the same exact mistakes as you did, with the one difference being that I kicked one idea up to the domain (bacterial species). If, maybe I would have thought a little bit harder about it, I would have been able to come up with the rule/exception law.
I'm slightly disappointed by this, especially since my translation was completely and absolutely wrong.
Is anybody else getting these questions right without mapping out the conditional logic? I worry that this might hurt me in the future, but it is quicker for me to read through the answer choices and pick the right answer without thinking about sufficient/necessary conditions.
@ErikaMartinez99 My understanding of the course is that mapping it out is supposed to help develop the instinct needed. There's nowhere near enough time to map out every question on the test. I'm in a similar spot and I think we both are able to instinctually hunt the correct answer.