Small experimental vacuum tubes are a subset of vacuum tubes and we're told that all vacuum tubes' current max capacity is not comparable to semiconductors. The answer only states vacuum tubes in general and we know that SE vacuum tubes are a subset of this and this is all we care about. I don't understand the confusion, maybe I'm missing something.
I was just thinking this!!! I thought I was going crazy, thanks for the validation. Still confused if we're missing something because it seems straight forward.
I've come to realize that for most must be true statements, the answers will be weak. For instance, answer choices B-E have phrases such as "will be, the only reason, will always, the only advantage". Those phrases are too strong.
@KhushyMandania Although I agree with this in general, I feel like there is some confirmation bias here too. In this case, answer choice A is no less definitive in its wording than answer choice B. In fact, answer choice B utilizes "some" in its reference to digital circuits, whereas A simply refers to all digital circuits. Just something to take note of.
@PowerUp_Tutoring I think that's when you look at B's wording with future tense "Once...will". The scope of the stem is only constricted to the present not what will happen. It never goes to mention what should happen in the future. That's why B also does not hold up through a primary lens.
@Isra I think you are misunderstanding my comment. I was responding to the other comment's observation that the wrong answers are worded too strongly. I was pointing out that the right answer is worded just as strongly in this specific question and that AC B might even be less strongly worded.
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 see your reasoning, but I believe there is a key reason why JY's explanation is necessary. Within the confines of the horror show that is LSAT logical thinking principles, rules/principles only ONLY only apply when the sufficient has been triggered.
The "small experimental vacuum tubes" triggered this rule about being able to replace the other tech things because they were better with heat. All things that are better with heat must abide by these rules now. But things that don't deal with heat better? i.e. things that fail the sufficient conditions, we have zero, nadda, zip, clues as to what standard they are being judged against.
If the rule were simply that some X must abide by these certain rules to be able to replace Z, then yes it applies to everything. But this says that all X (that are better with heat) must abide by these rules. We infer that the other vacuum tubes are not better with heat, and therefore the explanation from JY was needed for logical clarity.
EXAMPLE:
If you play in the NFL then you have to have won 75% of your games to be considered to be a NFL coach.
If you do not play in the NFL, then that same rule does not apply to you. Just like because the normal vacuum tubes don't handle heat better, they are not subject to the rule that applies only to things that handle heat better. Hope this makes sense and helps!
@aldertree00644 There's two necessary conditions for a component to be preferable. They must have better heat resistance and must be comparable in all other significant aspects. We don't know if all vacuum tubes have a higher heat tolerance, but we absolutely do know that vacuum tubes are worse in at least one significant respect. Therefore, they fail at least one of the necessary conditions. We don't need to know if they pass/fail the other if we know for a fact they fail one.
A more apt comparison is:
A college football coach who has won 75% or more of their games would be ensured a job as an NFL coach, unless they currently have a felony criminal record, such a DUI conviction.
Larry was convicted of a felony DUI and has not had his criminal record expunged.
Which of the following must be true:
A - Larry is not ensured a job as an NFL coach.
Do we need to know whether Larry was ever a football coach at all? No, because even if he was the GOAT college football coach with a 100% win rate and 15 years of experience, his felony conviction would not qualify him to be ensured a NFL coaching job.
I don't understand why the long, drawn-out explanation over heat tolerance when it is failing the comparable condition by not having sufficient currency capacity.
Edit: He makes the explanation clear in 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.
@aldertree00644 If you read the text explanation, it's pretty clear that he just missed the final sentence of the prompt when he was making the video, and the video needs to be corrected. It doesn't matter whether VTs can withstand more heat than semiconductors, because they fail the second condition and cannot be preferable for that reason.
where is the benefit of answering these questions in such little time - u dont even have the ability to think when reading the stimulus and stem - I think the 35 min is so unfair! how many students taking the lsat actually thrive under the time constraint
Does anyone find it easier to use process of elimination than try to understand the stimuli? I found this one pretty hard to parse out after several reads but when I went to look at the answers I was able to find the correct answer very easily.
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!
@AnibalCPerez no flaws here, you are correct. I was about to post the same comment. The heat tolerance language is a total red herring and totally irrelevant to the solution. A is an airtight correct answer.
@AnibalCPerez Yeah, the explanation going into "small experimental" and "heat resistance" makes no sense for this question. It says in the last line, "Vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors." That right there ensures that A must be true.
Isn't the answer obvious due to the last sentence, saying vacuum tubes are not comparable to semiconductors? If the rule was pref ——> comp, obviously all vacuum tubes would not be preferred and thus not comparable?
Not sure why J.Y. is confused and hung up on A not specifying SE vacuum compared to vacuum tubes in general. The statement that matters here is the one that says "vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable"
This the condition that makes A the correct answer, and as you can see, it is not specifying SE vacuum tubes. It is stating that ALL vacuum tubes are not currently comparable..... There is no mistake and no elaborate assumption here
@epayne17 Agreed. Additionally, the last sentence of the stim states only "vacuum tubes." I didn't feel as though it was a leap to state just vacuum tubes in the answers.
Regardless, I gather the point J.Y. makes here is to exercise pragmatism when surveying the answers. Compare the other answer choices against your suspected correct answer to clarify if your hunch is correct.
I think I understood answer A a little differently than was explained in the video. Small vacuum tubes are a subset of vacuum tubes. The final sentence in the stimulus says vacuum tubes are not presently comparable in their current capacity, so regardless of their heat tolerance, they are not currently a good substitute for semiconductors. I don't think the LSAT writers are making any assumptions about general vacuum tube heat tolerance, because even if they meet the heat tolerance condition they still fail the maximum current capacity and therefore cannot be a good substitute. Since that failure applies to the superset of general vacuum tubes, it would then apply to the small tube subset.
Is this an incorrect understanding of the stimulus / answers?
I think the issue is that the set is for components with greater heat tolerance. That is where the necessary condition comes in play. The question is only regarding the necessary condition for a component with a greater heat tolerance, not a component overall or under any other set. So the assumption that the video made is still important.
For the "small vacuum tubes" vs "vacuum tubes" debate, I deduced that the language was interchangeable because later on in the passage, it just says "vacuum tubes" as well as in all the answer choices it only refers to them as "vacuum tubes."
This one was pretty clear cut for me. The stimulus says in ALL other significant respects. Even if there were 100 other significant respects, missing even one would make them not preferable to semiconductors. So even breaking ONE of those rules (not matching max current capacity) disqualifies the vacuum tubes entirely.
Quick tip: when practicing MSS and MBT questions, I tell myself “I don’t know” if I can’t reasonably "get" what the question is asking from the stimulus alone. Treat the stimulus like a law or a set of facts that defines a new reality. Once you accept that reality and stop having outside assumptions, many answer choices eliminate themselves and the correct one becomes much more obvious.
I skimmed the stem and then tried to guesstimate which one could be the answer choice. I was looking for something that had a looser wording and, lo an behold, it was A. Wording for all the other answer choices were too extreme: future tense, the only etc.
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
might wanna get tested for ADHD, I had the same problem, went on meds, problem went away. Also caffeine works as an ADHD medication, so that's a good way to self medicate when you need it for something major.
184 comments
Horseshit.
Keep your head up brotha
i miss main conclusion questions
Lol I feel ya
Small experimental vacuum tubes are a subset of vacuum tubes and we're told that all vacuum tubes' current max capacity is not comparable to semiconductors. The answer only states vacuum tubes in general and we know that SE vacuum tubes are a subset of this and this is all we care about. I don't understand the confusion, maybe I'm missing something.
agreed
same lol
I was just thinking this!!! I thought I was going crazy, thanks for the validation. Still confused if we're missing something because it seems straight forward.
I've come to realize that for most must be true statements, the answers will be weak. For instance, answer choices B-E have phrases such as "will be, the only reason, will always, the only advantage". Those phrases are too strong.
@KhushyMandania Although I agree with this in general, I feel like there is some confirmation bias here too. In this case, answer choice A is no less definitive in its wording than answer choice B. In fact, answer choice B utilizes "some" in its reference to digital circuits, whereas A simply refers to all digital circuits. Just something to take note of.
@PowerUp_Tutoring I think that's when you look at B's wording with future tense "Once...will". The scope of the stem is only constricted to the present not what will happen. It never goes to mention what should happen in the future. That's why B also does not hold up through a primary lens.
@Isra I think you are misunderstanding my comment. I was responding to the other comment's observation that the wrong answers are worded too strongly. I was pointing out that the right answer is worded just as strongly in this specific question and that AC B might even be less strongly worded.
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.
Came here to say just this.
I see your reasoning, but I believe there is a key reason why JY's explanation is necessary. Within the confines of the horror show that is LSAT logical thinking principles, rules/principles only ONLY only apply when the sufficient has been triggered.
The "small experimental vacuum tubes" triggered this rule about being able to replace the other tech things because they were better with heat. All things that are better with heat must abide by these rules now. But things that don't deal with heat better? i.e. things that fail the sufficient conditions, we have zero, nadda, zip, clues as to what standard they are being judged against.
If the rule were simply that some X must abide by these certain rules to be able to replace Z, then yes it applies to everything. But this says that all X (that are better with heat) must abide by these rules. We infer that the other vacuum tubes are not better with heat, and therefore the explanation from JY was needed for logical clarity.
EXAMPLE:
If you play in the NFL then you have to have won 75% of your games to be considered to be a NFL coach.
If you do not play in the NFL, then that same rule does not apply to you. Just like because the normal vacuum tubes don't handle heat better, they are not subject to the rule that applies only to things that handle heat better. Hope this makes sense and helps!
@aldertree00644 There's two necessary conditions for a component to be preferable. They must have better heat resistance and must be comparable in all other significant aspects. We don't know if all vacuum tubes have a higher heat tolerance, but we absolutely do know that vacuum tubes are worse in at least one significant respect. Therefore, they fail at least one of the necessary conditions. We don't need to know if they pass/fail the other if we know for a fact they fail one.
A more apt comparison is:
A college football coach who has won 75% or more of their games would be ensured a job as an NFL coach, unless they currently have a felony criminal record, such a DUI conviction.
Larry was convicted of a felony DUI and has not had his criminal record expunged.
Which of the following must be true:
A - Larry is not ensured a job as an NFL coach.
Do we need to know whether Larry was ever a football coach at all? No, because even if he was the GOAT college football coach with a 100% win rate and 15 years of experience, his felony conviction would not qualify him to be ensured a NFL coaching job.
@ActuallyJozu exactly.
I don't understand why the long, drawn-out explanation over heat tolerance when it is failing the comparable condition by not having sufficient currency capacity.
Edit: He makes the explanation clear in 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.
@aldertree00644 If you read the text explanation, it's pretty clear that he just missed the final sentence of the prompt when he was making the video, and the video needs to be corrected. It doesn't matter whether VTs can withstand more heat than semiconductors, because they fail the second condition and cannot be preferable for that reason.
Im so cooked chat
Expecting us to answer this in 1:25 is wild lol
where is the benefit of answering these questions in such little time - u dont even have the ability to think when reading the stimulus and stem - I think the 35 min is so unfair! how many students taking the lsat actually thrive under the time constraint
I am not understanding this...
I HATE MBT questions with every fiber in my body omg. I have never wanted to cry more while going through a lesson.
This has been my exact feeling so much
#help
Does anyone find it easier to use process of elimination than try to understand the stimuli? I found this one pretty hard to parse out after several reads but when I went to look at the answers I was able to find the correct answer very easily.
#feedback
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no "gap" and no reason why answer A isn't 100% correct.
preferable --> comparable & greater heat resistance
comparableorgreater heat resistance-->preferableThe stimulus explicitly states: "However, vacuum tubes’ maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors."
Answer A states: "Vacuum tubes are not now preferable to semiconductors for use in digital circuits."
I think we can forget any information about “small experimental vacuum tubes" because the stimulus refers to ALL vacuum tubes in the last sentence.
.
agreed. it seems pretty straight forward to me.
lfg i got this one right
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!
@AnibalCPerez no flaws here, you are correct. I was about to post the same comment. The heat tolerance language is a total red herring and totally irrelevant to the solution. A is an airtight correct answer.
@AnibalCPerez You're definitely correct. That was the most obvious logic for me as well.
@AnibalCPerez Yeah, the explanation going into "small experimental" and "heat resistance" makes no sense for this question. It says in the last line, "Vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable to that of semiconductors." That right there ensures that A must be true.
@AnibalCPerez Thanks much for the clarification!
Isn't the answer obvious due to the last sentence, saying vacuum tubes are not comparable to semiconductors? If the rule was pref ——> comp, obviously all vacuum tubes would not be preferred and thus not comparable?
Yes. This description clearly missed the key phrasing in the stimulus.
i was thinking this too
my exact thought
There is no way I am getting these right under the time limit.
Not sure why J.Y. is confused and hung up on A not specifying SE vacuum compared to vacuum tubes in general. The statement that matters here is the one that says "vacuum tubes' maximum current capacity is presently not comparable"
This the condition that makes A the correct answer, and as you can see, it is not specifying SE vacuum tubes. It is stating that ALL vacuum tubes are not currently comparable..... There is no mistake and no elaborate assumption here
@epayne17 Agreed. Additionally, the last sentence of the stim states only "vacuum tubes." I didn't feel as though it was a leap to state just vacuum tubes in the answers.
Regardless, I gather the point J.Y. makes here is to exercise pragmatism when surveying the answers. Compare the other answer choices against your suspected correct answer to clarify if your hunch is correct.
I think I understood answer A a little differently than was explained in the video. Small vacuum tubes are a subset of vacuum tubes. The final sentence in the stimulus says vacuum tubes are not presently comparable in their current capacity, so regardless of their heat tolerance, they are not currently a good substitute for semiconductors. I don't think the LSAT writers are making any assumptions about general vacuum tube heat tolerance, because even if they meet the heat tolerance condition they still fail the maximum current capacity and therefore cannot be a good substitute. Since that failure applies to the superset of general vacuum tubes, it would then apply to the small tube subset.
Is this an incorrect understanding of the stimulus / answers?
I think the issue is that the set is for components with greater heat tolerance. That is where the necessary condition comes in play. The question is only regarding the necessary condition for a component with a greater heat tolerance, not a component overall or under any other set. So the assumption that the video made is still important.
For the "small vacuum tubes" vs "vacuum tubes" debate, I deduced that the language was interchangeable because later on in the passage, it just says "vacuum tubes" as well as in all the answer choices it only refers to them as "vacuum tubes."
This one was pretty clear cut for me. The stimulus says in ALL other significant respects. Even if there were 100 other significant respects, missing even one would make them not preferable to semiconductors. So even breaking ONE of those rules (not matching max current capacity) disqualifies the vacuum tubes entirely.
Another one correct LET'S GO
Quick tip: when practicing MSS and MBT questions, I tell myself “I don’t know” if I can’t reasonably "get" what the question is asking from the stimulus alone. Treat the stimulus like a law or a set of facts that defines a new reality. Once you accept that reality and stop having outside assumptions, many answer choices eliminate themselves and the correct one becomes much more obvious.
im so cooked i suck at these MBT questions bro
@mzughaerr they're kind of rare, i feel like i usually only see one per section so i wouldn't worry too much ;)
This the type of question you skip for real
I tried doing an experiment-
I skimmed the stem and then tried to guesstimate which one could be the answer choice. I was looking for something that had a looser wording and, lo an behold, it was A. Wording for all the other answer choices were too extreme: future tense, the only etc.
Got so lucky! yey
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
lots of coffee lol
real
might wanna get tested for ADHD, I had the same problem, went on meds, problem went away. Also caffeine works as an ADHD medication, so that's a good way to self medicate when you need it for something major.
Praying I don't get something like this on the LSAT lmaoo