I initially thought the 2nd Q is NOT and argument, but then said to myself:
What if I read it like:
Premise [After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.]
added in my head: Therefore, =>
Conclusion [One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species]
Support [Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor.]
I guess there are three takeaways:
1- Trust your first instinct
2- Don't add non-existent words to MAKE it an argument
3- That this is a report (which I still have difficulty figuring out the difference)
Simply saying that the question is "reporting" on some findings, would not solve the nature of the question for me. How would you identify an argument from a report?
@AmirAlavi I did the same thing. I think one way to differentiate an argument from the report is like you mentioned in #2 - don't reason with yourself to make it an argument and treat a fact is a fact.
number 2 got me...was a good reminder to not coast through the question. I originally misconstrued the authors reporting of the scientists' conclusion as the author's own conclusion which was incorrect
@ChimziChuku As did I. I recalled shortly after recognizing my mistake that the LSAT writers care deeply about what the author of the passage thinks, not necessarily the scientist's thoughts, and subsequently the specific point the author is trying to make.
For Question 1, wouldn't the conclusion be "If such a business introduced minor variations into its operating system software, unauthorized access to all the computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated."
The reason I say so is because, isn't this the point the author of question 1 is trying to make and is very well supported by other statements.
The conclusion at the last sentence, just seems very vague, although it is supported, does not tell us readers what SPECIFIC point he is making other than "...it is advisable for businesses to implement SUCH variations." The vagueness and ambiguity is concerning me. Please advise.
@LSATspecialist I agree. The conclusion by it's format seems incomplete, and expanding it feels like it brings the arguement as whole together more effectively
@LSATspecialist This is what I thought at first but I think it’s because it’s explaining “why” it’s advisable for businesses to implement such variations.
I think “If such a business introduced minor variations…” would be a secondary conclusion, not the main one. I could be wrong though.
@misoop I believe that is correct. The conclusion of the researchers is not used to substantiate a claim, as nothing is being argued. It is a statement of fact, which is often times used as support for an argument and arguments have conclusions, but in this case it is just a statement of fact.
"One method" etc. or other parts of the stimuli that don't support an author's pov or a conclusion/takeawway from premises/claims does NOT qualify as a conclusion and thus doesn't make Q2 an argument
Would question 2 not be an argument as the statements
"They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears."
"After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
"Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."
supports the statement of
"One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species."
@KhyberBabak I believe its because the claims following the source are reporting from "scientists," not the author. The author makes a claim in the first sentence, but does not follow this up with any subsequent claims; they are just reporting content from another source. All following sentences refer to what the scientists are saying rather than what the author is purporting ("scientists theorize"/"scientists concluded"/"they further concluded"). I'm not sure if that's exactly why, because I also thought the same thing about the first sentence having support from the following sentences, but that's my best guess.
5/5 again, thank goodness. I kept double checking Q2, but I was right that it doesn't have an argument. I was thinking that the conclusion was the tidbit about the whole 'conclusion that red pandas separated blah blah blah' but it just sortof flows like an excerpt from an article not arguing anything.
@ManusWeber Same!! #2 felt like a trick question with the conclusion indicator words in there. Glad I wasn't the only one who was skeptical with this one.
Is it ok to just skip all the fluff and look for the conclusion start such as searching for a "therefore" or "as a result". Thinking about the timing of the LSAT and looking to figure it out quick. If I find the conclusion quick I can skim the top to see what the premise would be. If I don't find the conclusion indicator then I backtrack to see what the sentence is asking like #2 where I can see that the author didn't come to their own conclusion. Should I be doing this now or should I be reading the whole thing?
@JosephTrischitta It was one of the strategies given in a previous section, to look for keywords like "therefore" I find this method to be reliable to be the first thing I look at, and then go the "get to the point" and then the final strategy
so in #2 -- I think there was a conclusion but it seems like it was someone else's conclusion. So that means the author did not assert their own conclusion and instead reported someone else's conclusion..and so there is no conclusion...?
@SavanahHoffstein Same! I think this is my main issue in RC when there are multiple paragraphs and you have to find the premises and conclusions to multiple different arguments while also just taking the given information as given information. So tricky to discern the two sometimes.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
203 comments
5/5 sweeet!
5/5 yay
could it be that our mind was playing a trick on us for q2, making our own assumptions or introducing our own biases and hid us from the truth....
4/5
4/5
I initially thought the 2nd Q is NOT and argument, but then said to myself:
What if I read it like:
Premise [After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears.]
added in my head: Therefore, =>
Conclusion [One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species]
Support [Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor.]
I guess there are three takeaways:
1- Trust your first instinct
2- Don't add non-existent words to MAKE it an argument
3- That this is a report (which I still have difficulty figuring out the difference)
Simply saying that the question is "reporting" on some findings, would not solve the nature of the question for me. How would you identify an argument from a report?
Any thoughts ?
@AmirAlavi I did the same thing. I think one way to differentiate an argument from the report is like you mentioned in #2 - don't reason with yourself to make it an argument and treat a fact is a fact.
5/5 🥳
number 2 got me...was a good reminder to not coast through the question. I originally misconstrued the authors reporting of the scientists' conclusion as the author's own conclusion which was incorrect
@ChimziChuku As did I. I recalled shortly after recognizing my mistake that the LSAT writers care deeply about what the author of the passage thinks, not necessarily the scientist's thoughts, and subsequently the specific point the author is trying to make.
For Question 1, wouldn't the conclusion be "If such a business introduced minor variations into its operating system software, unauthorized access to all the computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated."
The reason I say so is because, isn't this the point the author of question 1 is trying to make and is very well supported by other statements.
The conclusion at the last sentence, just seems very vague, although it is supported, does not tell us readers what SPECIFIC point he is making other than "...it is advisable for businesses to implement SUCH variations." The vagueness and ambiguity is concerning me. Please advise.
@LSATspecialist I agree. The conclusion by it's format seems incomplete, and expanding it feels like it brings the arguement as whole together more effectively
@LSATspecialist This is what I thought at first but I think it’s because it’s explaining “why” it’s advisable for businesses to implement such variations.
I think “If such a business introduced minor variations…” would be a secondary conclusion, not the main one. I could be wrong though.
#4 is what got me.
@DortheaElridge Same.
So basically #2 would not have a conclusion because it is not stated by the author, and instead, the scientist from the study ?
@misoop I believe that is correct. The conclusion of the researchers is not used to substantiate a claim, as nothing is being argued. It is a statement of fact, which is often times used as support for an argument and arguments have conclusions, but in this case it is just a statement of fact.
@misoop There's no relationship between the various claims. They're all just independent claims.
"One method" etc. or other parts of the stimuli that don't support an author's pov or a conclusion/takeawway from premises/claims does NOT qualify as a conclusion and thus doesn't make Q2 an argument
4/5
4/5! 2 got me a little confused
Would question 2 not be an argument as the statements
"They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears."
"After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
"Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."
supports the statement of
"One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species."
@KhyberBabak I believe its because the claims following the source are reporting from "scientists," not the author. The author makes a claim in the first sentence, but does not follow this up with any subsequent claims; they are just reporting content from another source. All following sentences refer to what the scientists are saying rather than what the author is purporting ("scientists theorize"/"scientists concluded"/"they further concluded"). I'm not sure if that's exactly why, because I also thought the same thing about the first sentence having support from the following sentences, but that's my best guess.
5/5!! Yayyyyy
4/5, 2 tripped me up
5/5 again, thank goodness. I kept double checking Q2, but I was right that it doesn't have an argument. I was thinking that the conclusion was the tidbit about the whole 'conclusion that red pandas separated blah blah blah' but it just sortof flows like an excerpt from an article not arguing anything.
@ManusWeber Same!! #2 felt like a trick question with the conclusion indicator words in there. Glad I wasn't the only one who was skeptical with this one.
The explanation for question 2 kinda sucks
@Foxe agreed
Boom! 5/5 again :D
Question 4 is really confusing; is it because English is my second language?
@Hfa I think i got it.
Sistine Chapel - this dress
Michelangelo - Dying company
so if none of the chemicals affect the original color of this dress, then the colors used by dying company will not be be gone by using this chemical.
@Hfa Yes exactly right
5/5!
Is it ok to just skip all the fluff and look for the conclusion start such as searching for a "therefore" or "as a result". Thinking about the timing of the LSAT and looking to figure it out quick. If I find the conclusion quick I can skim the top to see what the premise would be. If I don't find the conclusion indicator then I backtrack to see what the sentence is asking like #2 where I can see that the author didn't come to their own conclusion. Should I be doing this now or should I be reading the whole thing?
@JosephTrischitta It was one of the strategies given in a previous section, to look for keywords like "therefore" I find this method to be reliable to be the first thing I look at, and then go the "get to the point" and then the final strategy
@SethRubin Awesome thank you, wasnt sure if that was meant for later but true and no harm learning this trick now.
so in #2 -- I think there was a conclusion but it seems like it was someone else's conclusion. So that means the author did not assert their own conclusion and instead reported someone else's conclusion..and so there is no conclusion...?
@cworth1512 Yeah, you got it.
Question 2 got me!! It seemed to me like there was some sort of support structure but I guess it was facts and claims and not premise and conclusion.
@SavanahHoffstein Same! I think this is my main issue in RC when there are multiple paragraphs and you have to find the premises and conclusions to multiple different arguments while also just taking the given information as given information. So tricky to discern the two sometimes.
4/5 again. Question 2 tripped me up. It seems like, as seen in 1, you can have an extended conclusion/multiple conclusions
Well I already see noticeable progress which is nice.
Question two baited me. rough to dissect assumptions in my head