From my perspective, causal arguments are where 7sage seems least rigorous. I am not a fan of treating a phenomenon requiring explanation as premise to a causal argument. The premises to a causal argument are distinct from the phenomenon itself.
I like the idea that we are only looking for an alternative hypothesis that disproves the original (for causal realtionships), it makes so much sense to see it that way. I thought that I had to use the same method from the strengthen.
Alrighty. I think this is probably going to be a weaker section for me [pun not intended lol], but I might be wrong.
Here's what I'm gathering from memory for a summary:
WSE (Weaken, Strengthen, Evaluate) questions are like RRE (Resolve, Reconcile, Explain) in that we must treat all of the answer choices as true. We are given a set of premises that we also must treat as true, just like RRE. However, the hypothesis, otherwise known as a conclusion here, must be treated with suspicion, as it is not invariably proven true by the premises provided in the stimulus. Our job here, depending upon if it is a weaken or strengthen question, must find one of these "true" answers and determine which one MOST weakens or strengthens the premises and their relationship to (support given) vis-a-vis the conclusion.
I am not sure yet what type of question the Evaluate in WSE means. Maybe it's for a later lesson.
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!
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.
22 comments
From my perspective, causal arguments are where 7sage seems least rigorous. I am not a fan of treating a phenomenon requiring explanation as premise to a causal argument. The premises to a causal argument are distinct from the phenomenon itself.
In MSS, the answer choice is a "baby" of the facts.
In Strengthen, the answer choice is a "booster"
In RRE, the answer choice is "mystery clue"
so are strengthen questions approached basically the same as RRE questions then since you're not looking to undermine the argument?
No video?
Getting ready for my second LSAT, came back here because I'm struggling on these questions in PTs. Just a reminder that yall got this!
Mr. Fat Cat the best recurring character on 7sage?
love that these sections are always listed as like 5 minutes these times were clearlyyy not decided by someone reading and taking notes
I would find videos helpful for these sections #feedback
Please can somebody tell me where we can find a list of the acronyms?? If can't recall what RRE means then I cannot understand this section.
OMG these TLAs drive me crazy. Please write out acronyms in full at first useage in each section.
I like the idea that we are only looking for an alternative hypothesis that disproves the original (for causal realtionships), it makes so much sense to see it that way. I thought that I had to use the same method from the strengthen.
Alrighty. I think this is probably going to be a weaker section for me [pun not intended lol], but I might be wrong.
Here's what I'm gathering from memory for a summary:
WSE (Weaken, Strengthen, Evaluate) questions are like RRE (Resolve, Reconcile, Explain) in that we must treat all of the answer choices as true. We are given a set of premises that we also must treat as true, just like RRE. However, the hypothesis, otherwise known as a conclusion here, must be treated with suspicion, as it is not invariably proven true by the premises provided in the stimulus. Our job here, depending upon if it is a weaken or strengthen question, must find one of these "true" answers and determine which one MOST weakens or strengthens the premises and their relationship to (support given) vis-a-vis the conclusion.
I am not sure yet what type of question the Evaluate in WSE means. Maybe it's for a later lesson.
Premises: true
Conclusion: treat with suspicion (not proven)
Answer choices: all true (one is the best fit)
Justice for Mr. Fat Cat NOW
1 like = 1 donation to his legal defense fund
S - Which one of the following, if true, lends the most support to the psychologist’s hypothesis?
Wouldn't this be a MSS question type and not a WSE question type ?
I'm confident that Big Dog is innocent, your honor.
Is there a list somewhere on 7Sage that has all the LR question-type strategies laid out together?
BIG DOG <3!