#help Is it important, at this point in learning, to get the questions correct in the time they expect me to get?
I'm having a hard time doing the question within the timeframe while using Lawgic. If I use Lawgic my confidence in finding the answer skyrockets, but I take twice the recommended time :(
I went above the timeline, more than double, and it was suggested to me to review on BR (figured I got my actual take wrong picking A, but stuck with my answer after re-reading the other options and got it right). This will be a mouthful, but here's how I went about it (feel free to correct if I am mistaken):
A = Small experimental vacuum tubes
B = Operating in heat
C = Semiconductors components fail
D = Component's comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity)
E = Resistance to heat greater to semiconductors
F = Preferable to use in digital circuits
First sentence we can construct: A --> B --> C. OK.
Second sentence: D AND E --> F, and the reasoning is as follows:
Any component whose resistance to heat is great to that of semiconductors (E) would be preferable for use in digital circuits (F) [so here we have E --> F], but only if that component (from E) is also comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity) (i.e. D); this means that E --> F only if D also happens, hence D AND E --> F).
Taking the contrapositive of both:
/C --> /B --> /A } Semiconductor components don't fail --> DOES NOT operate in heat --> IS NOT Small experimental vacuum tubes. OK.
/F --> /E OR /D. } What does this mean?
NOT preferable to use in digital circuits --> (NOT resistance to heat greater to semiconductors OR Component's NOT comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity)). OK.
Last sentence says that Vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors. So this is /D. What can we draw from /D (based on what I described)? That if F is false (i.e. /F), then at least one of E or D is False (i.e. either /E or /D) [It’s not that /F causes either /E or /D; it’s that if /F is true, at least one of /E or /D must be true, meaning that knowing we have /F leads us to know we for sure have either /E or /D].
Option A (in the Answer) tells us that "Vacuum tubes are not now preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits" = this is /F that I mentioned. That said, we don't know whether /E occurs (i.e. whether the component DOES NOT have resistance to heat greater to semiconductors), so we can't conclude /E or E.
Knowing that it is /F --> /E or /D, you can tell that based on the last sentence of the stimulus (i.e. /D), and Option (A) [of the answers] giving you /F, that based on this chain, Option A is the right answer.
I was glad to see lots of other comments. This question actually seemed really straight forward to me but maybe I'm looking at it wrong?
I simplified the logic as:
If (Greater heat resistance) AND (comparable) then preferable
And we are told that although some vacuum tubes meet the first half of the sufficient condition (Greater heat resistance), all vacuum tubes fail the second required condition (comparable).
As a result of failing the full sufficient condition, it is insufficient to trigger the necessary condition. In other words, even if a vacuum tube has greater heat resistance, none of them are comparable, therefore none of them are preferrable.
I feel like it would've been easier to chalk it up to something like this:
preferred -> comparable
Contrapositive: /comparable -> /preferred.
I spent much longer on this question than I think I should have and I wasn't even really thinking of Lawgic or this theoretical approach when I narrowed it down to A), but it makes so much sense in my head.
I came here to disagree with the video like so many of you have. However, did you read the text?
Here is the text explanation:
There’s one more sentence in the stimulus.
However, vacuum tubes’ maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors.
The third sentence tells us that all vacuum tubes do not currently have maximum current capacity comparable to semiconductors. So, SEVTs fail the necessary condition, and therefore SEVTs must not be preferable.
That is the explanation we were looking for in the video that was initially missed by J.Y. It was explained in the text following the video. Obviously, the video needs to be updated, but at least it's there in the text explanation.
Did anyone else base their answer on the "not now preferable" and "presently not comparable" parts of this argument? I follow the VT and SEVT distinctions just fine, and during review, I can understand, but I was having some trouble during the actual drill because I thought that those two made a connection. Do you think this follows logically?
No I think it's cuz at the end it says "[all] vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semi-conductors," and that disqualifies all vacuum tubes regardless of whether their resistance to heat is greater.
You can throw away the heat resistance, all that matters is that vacuum tubes don't have comparable max current capacity and that immediately disqualifies them for digital circuits. Easy point.
Got this one right on the first attempt! Slowing down helped me a lot. E was tempting because it was my "ideal answer," but learning not to choose the ideal answer with the right one.
I have to disagree with JY on why A is correct here. I got this right and am confident A must be true because of the only if statement. We know that only if a component (in which we refer to any component) is comparable in ALL other significant respects to semiconductors can it be preferable to a semiconductor in general. We are further told one of these significant respects is maximum current capacity. In the next sentence we learn that vacuum tubes (not just se vacuum tubes) do not have comparable maximum current capacities to semiconductors. Since vacuum tubes are failing the necessary condition of being preferable in all other significant respects we can conclude that vacuum tubes are not currently preferable.
Let me know if there is any flaws in the logic here. Thanks!
The small experimental thing doesn’t make sense to me. A seems airtight. By stating that vacuum tubes don't meet the carrying capacity needed to be equivalent to semiconductors, the passage essentially makes the heat tolerance requirement irrelevant - because, even if the larger group of vacuum tubes were heat tolerant, as the small experimental subgroup is stated to be, they wouldn’t meet the other condition needed (carrying capacity). So, we can say that it must be true that they are not an acceptable replacement.
Sometimes with a wordy stimulus like this, I find myself jumping to the last sentence and working backwards through the paragraph and that has seemed to help me dissect what is actually being said better. I am wondering if this strategy will ever come back to bite me?
A is actually pretty clear to me, I think the explanation only served to make it more confusing haha. The final sentence gives you what you need to know. Vacuum tubes aren't currently comparable to semi conductors. They fail the necessary condition and are thus not preferable. Open and shut case.
Also, I think "small experimental" is just describing the qualities of vacuum tubes, and "vacuum tubes/SEVT" and as written in the stimulus and answer choices are all talking about the same thing.
Does anybody know a tactic that keeps you focused on questions where the stimulus is painfully uninteresting? I don't necessarily need help with finding the answers most of the time, but its always a mental battle trying to focus on a set of facts that are almost physically painfully boring to read
okay... this might be too much of a simplification but.. if there are no conditional situations in the stimulus, then can we immediately eliminate answers with “Only,” “Will always,” or “Will be"?
#Help I am having trouble dealing with both conditions...the sufficient condition and the necessary condition in the passage. When I go to look for an answer I get confused because I always see extreme language like "only if, always & others". In the blind reviews I even set them wrong. Do you guys have any recomendations?
Why does the SEVT / all vacuum tube distinction in A matter? Isn't the last sentence (vacuum tubes are not currently comparable) a clear indicator that they are not preferable, since comparable is a necessary condition?
7
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.
150 comments
#help Is it important, at this point in learning, to get the questions correct in the time they expect me to get?
I'm having a hard time doing the question within the timeframe while using Lawgic. If I use Lawgic my confidence in finding the answer skyrockets, but I take twice the recommended time :(
I went above the timeline, more than double, and it was suggested to me to review on BR (figured I got my actual take wrong picking A, but stuck with my answer after re-reading the other options and got it right). This will be a mouthful, but here's how I went about it (feel free to correct if I am mistaken):
A = Small experimental vacuum tubes
B = Operating in heat
C = Semiconductors components fail
D = Component's comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity)
E = Resistance to heat greater to semiconductors
F = Preferable to use in digital circuits
First sentence we can construct: A --> B --> C. OK.
Second sentence: D AND E --> F, and the reasoning is as follows:
Any component whose resistance to heat is great to that of semiconductors (E) would be preferable for use in digital circuits (F) [so here we have E --> F], but only if that component (from E) is also comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity) (i.e. D); this means that E --> F only if D also happens, hence D AND E --> F).
Taking the contrapositive of both:
/C --> /B --> /A } Semiconductor components don't fail --> DOES NOT operate in heat --> IS NOT Small experimental vacuum tubes. OK.
/F --> /E OR /D. } What does this mean?
NOT preferable to use in digital circuits --> (NOT resistance to heat greater to semiconductors OR Component's NOT comparable to semiconductors in all other categories (like max capacity)). OK.
Last sentence says that Vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors. So this is /D. What can we draw from /D (based on what I described)? That if F is false (i.e. /F), then at least one of E or D is False (i.e. either /E or /D) [It’s not that /F causes either /E or /D; it’s that if /F is true, at least one of /E or /D must be true, meaning that knowing we have /F leads us to know we for sure have either /E or /D].
Option A (in the Answer) tells us that "Vacuum tubes are not now preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits" = this is /F that I mentioned. That said, we don't know whether /E occurs (i.e. whether the component DOES NOT have resistance to heat greater to semiconductors), so we can't conclude /E or E.
Knowing that it is /F --> /E or /D, you can tell that based on the last sentence of the stimulus (i.e. /D), and Option (A) [of the answers] giving you /F, that based on this chain, Option A is the right answer.
Once I re-read the stim probably 20 times and got over the girl math I was doing in my head to make sense of the content, I got the question right :)
I was glad to see lots of other comments. This question actually seemed really straight forward to me but maybe I'm looking at it wrong?
I simplified the logic as:
If (Greater heat resistance) AND (comparable) then preferable
And we are told that although some vacuum tubes meet the first half of the sufficient condition (Greater heat resistance), all vacuum tubes fail the second required condition (comparable).
As a result of failing the full sufficient condition, it is insufficient to trigger the necessary condition. In other words, even if a vacuum tube has greater heat resistance, none of them are comparable, therefore none of them are preferrable.
I feel like it would've been easier to chalk it up to something like this:
preferred -> comparable
Contrapositive: /comparable -> /preferred.
I spent much longer on this question than I think I should have and I wasn't even really thinking of Lawgic or this theoretical approach when I narrowed it down to A), but it makes so much sense in my head.
I came here to disagree with the video like so many of you have. However, did you read the text?
Here is the text explanation:
There’s one more sentence in the stimulus.
However, vacuum tubes’ maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors.
The third sentence tells us that all vacuum tubes do not currently have maximum current capacity comparable to semiconductors. So, SEVTs fail the necessary condition, and therefore SEVTs must not be preferable.
That is the explanation we were looking for in the video that was initially missed by J.Y. It was explained in the text following the video. Obviously, the video needs to be updated, but at least it's there in the text explanation.
Hopefully this helps.
bro this question rocked my shit for a minute, i literally crossed out all 5 answers and then went back to and realized I was overcomplicating things.
im so cooked i suck at these MBT questions bro
Did anyone else base their answer on the "not now preferable" and "presently not comparable" parts of this argument? I follow the VT and SEVT distinctions just fine, and during review, I can understand, but I was having some trouble during the actual drill because I thought that those two made a connection. Do you think this follows logically?
No I think it's cuz at the end it says "[all] vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semi-conductors," and that disqualifies all vacuum tubes regardless of whether their resistance to heat is greater.
You can throw away the heat resistance, all that matters is that vacuum tubes don't have comparable max current capacity and that immediately disqualifies them for digital circuits. Easy point.
Got this one in under a minute!
Got this one right on the first attempt! Slowing down helped me a lot. E was tempting because it was my "ideal answer," but learning not to choose the ideal answer with the right one.
I have to disagree with JY on why A is correct here. I got this right and am confident A must be true because of the only if statement. We know that only if a component (in which we refer to any component) is comparable in ALL other significant respects to semiconductors can it be preferable to a semiconductor in general. We are further told one of these significant respects is maximum current capacity. In the next sentence we learn that vacuum tubes (not just se vacuum tubes) do not have comparable maximum current capacities to semiconductors. Since vacuum tubes are failing the necessary condition of being preferable in all other significant respects we can conclude that vacuum tubes are not currently preferable.
Let me know if there is any flaws in the logic here. Thanks!
Accidently thought this was a must be false question bc I didn't read the stem. Got A in the blind review afterwards. I gotta slow down!!
I selected the correct answer but it definitely took me more than 3 minutes and rereading and parsing the stimulus 12 times.
I based the "lawgic" of this question on the understanding that small vacuum tubes contained semiconductor components.. oopss
The small experimental thing doesn’t make sense to me. A seems airtight. By stating that vacuum tubes don't meet the carrying capacity needed to be equivalent to semiconductors, the passage essentially makes the heat tolerance requirement irrelevant - because, even if the larger group of vacuum tubes were heat tolerant, as the small experimental subgroup is stated to be, they wouldn’t meet the other condition needed (carrying capacity). So, we can say that it must be true that they are not an acceptable replacement.
Sometimes with a wordy stimulus like this, I find myself jumping to the last sentence and working backwards through the paragraph and that has seemed to help me dissect what is actually being said better. I am wondering if this strategy will ever come back to bite me?
A is actually pretty clear to me, I think the explanation only served to make it more confusing haha. The final sentence gives you what you need to know. Vacuum tubes aren't currently comparable to semi conductors. They fail the necessary condition and are thus not preferable. Open and shut case.
Also, I think "small experimental" is just describing the qualities of vacuum tubes, and "vacuum tubes/SEVT" and as written in the stimulus and answer choices are all talking about the same thing.
I need to work on my timing.
Does anybody know a tactic that keeps you focused on questions where the stimulus is painfully uninteresting? I don't necessarily need help with finding the answers most of the time, but its always a mental battle trying to focus on a set of facts that are almost physically painfully boring to read
#feedback
okay... this might be too much of a simplification but.. if there are no conditional situations in the stimulus, then can we immediately eliminate answers with “Only,” “Will always,” or “Will be"?
#Help I am having trouble dealing with both conditions...the sufficient condition and the necessary condition in the passage. When I go to look for an answer I get confused because I always see extreme language like "only if, always & others". In the blind reviews I even set them wrong. Do you guys have any recomendations?
Why does the SEVT / all vacuum tube distinction in A matter? Isn't the last sentence (vacuum tubes are not currently comparable) a clear indicator that they are not preferable, since comparable is a necessary condition?