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.
When I first went through these lessons on Causal Reasoning, I totally sped by it and didn't retain much of it. I didn't really understand it. Then when I started drilling, I didn't understand why I couldn't get anything right. Now, like after 3 months, I'm back to this and wow this makes so much more sense.
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.
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.
25 comments
Justice for Mr. Fat Cat NOW
1 like = 1 donation to his legal defense fund
Wish I could repost this
beetlejuicing
I'm confident that Big Dog is innocent, your honor.
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
@moonydidit !!!
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!
I would find videos helpful for these sections #feedback
@lillirobinson17 same
OMG these TLAs drive me crazy. Please write out acronyms in full at first useage in each section.
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)
When I first went through these lessons on Causal Reasoning, I totally sped by it and didn't retain much of it. I didn't really understand it. Then when I started drilling, I didn't understand why I couldn't get anything right. Now, like after 3 months, I'm back to this and wow this makes so much more sense.
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.
RRE = resolve, reconcile, or explain
BIG DOG <3!
so are strengthen questions approached basically the same as RRE questions then since you're not looking to undermine the argument?
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.
No video?
In the middle of this unit when I got a notif from my phone saying that Dolly Parton passed away. wtf. we are in hell
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 ?
MSS questions ask which of the 5 choices are most strongly supported by the stimulus. (Which one is strengthened by the argument)
WSE-S questions ask which of the 5 choices most strongly support the stimulus. (Which choice most strengthens the argument)
They're inverted.
"Lends the most support to" paraphrases "gives-" or "provides the most support to", so it is still a WSE-S question.
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.
Is there a list somewhere on 7Sage that has all the LR question-type strategies laid out together?
Hi there,
Yes, you can find the Lessons on all the different LR questions on the Syllabus tab. See the GIF below:
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you need anything. I'm here to assist!