Question 2 almost got me. Circled back to it after answering the rest. Sometimes if you don't know, coming back to it later can give you a clearer head (rather than pondering over it for too long).
4/5 - question 2 threw me off. but now i understand that i was trying to force a conclusion to support the premises but they was no conclusion because she was basically listing facts
I got 4/5 only because I was looking too hard into Question #2. I tried too hard to piece together a conclusion, and I ultimately came up with the conclusion being, "......scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
I knew that it was extremely weak, but for some reason, my mind thought there was some support structure there.
However, I understand why I'm wrong and that there is no argument here in the question :-\
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.
@LSATspecialist I got confused on this question as well for this reason, but the way that I've looked at it is that the "If such a business introduced minor variation..." and the "Furthermore, variations in operating systems software can..." are secondary conclusions that are expanding on the main conclusion of "Therefore, it is advisable for businesses to implement such variations." <- this may be the wrong way to go about this, but dividing it up like this helped me better understand the problem
@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.
@Foxe The reason why I saw it wasn't an argument is because the writing isn't itself an argument, it's simply describing an argument. Key indicators are "Scientist" or "they concluded" which tells us they are describing something not arguing anything.
218 comments
5/5
Was I the only one that had trouble with 5 and not 2?
@lailajade The video explanation helped for sure. I need to work on finding indicators.
I will admit, question 2 did hurt me lol.
@DanielJunior0819 Me too! I thought the first line was the conclusion and the rest supported it
Question 2 almost got me. Circled back to it after answering the rest. Sometimes if you don't know, coming back to it later can give you a clearer head (rather than pondering over it for too long).
4/5 - question 2 threw me off. but now i understand that i was trying to force a conclusion to support the premises but they was no conclusion because she was basically listing facts
5/5
I got 4/5 only because I was looking too hard into Question #2. I tried too hard to piece together a conclusion, and I ultimately came up with the conclusion being, "......scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."
I knew that it was extremely weak, but for some reason, my mind thought there was some support structure there.
However, I understand why I'm wrong and that there is no argument here in the question :-\
@jaydenca I thought the exact same thing !
5/5!! it's getting easier to skim and point out the indicator words. thank you 7sage :)
would just like to say the ball game of Question 3 is WAY older
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.
@AmirAlavi I did that to! oh gosh
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.
@LSATspecialist I got confused on this question as well for this reason, but the way that I've looked at it is that the "If such a business introduced minor variation..." and the "Furthermore, variations in operating systems software can..." are secondary conclusions that are expanding on the main conclusion of "Therefore, it is advisable for businesses to implement such variations." <- this may be the wrong way to go about this, but dividing it up like this helped me better understand the problem
#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
@Foxe The reason why I saw it wasn't an argument is because the writing isn't itself an argument, it's simply describing an argument. Key indicators are "Scientist" or "they concluded" which tells us they are describing something not arguing anything.