My brain works backwards for these questions for some reason. Can someone simplify the relationship between the conclusion and the answer choices for me?
My prediction was that if people are honking, drivers will tend to want to be a dick right back, which led me to (E). Now I know that that only accounts for half the phenomenon, and not for those drivers waiting quietly
#Feedback, please reveal the answer choices at once. it gives most of us a better idea to compare and see. PLEASE. I know they have the questions, and i can look it up, but it misses the whole point for me seeing the question first time, while you guys are explaining it.
What threw me off about answer choice A and made me find AC C more attractive was the wording in A. The phrase “perform maneuvers with their cars” felt too vague—it could refer to backing out of a parking space, but also pulling in, parallel parking, using a roundabout, etc. It wasn’t specific enough.
On the other hand, answer choice C clearly refers to maneuvering a car out of a parking space while another car is waiting to enter it. That felt more relevant and specific to the scenario.
It also made me question the premise of the original argument. Maybe people aren't being possessive of their parking spots—maybe it just takes time and care to back out when someone’s waiting to take your spot. So the delay might be due to difficulty, not intention.
If I were under time pressure, I feel like I’d choose C, but I’m struggling to get a solid grasp on causal reasoning questions like this. #help
My prediction: The drivers are more cautious when another car is waiting, so as to avoid hitting the waiting car. The honking causes them to slow down even more, because it makes them think that they're about to hit another car.
The author made a general conclusion based on observations from a shopping mall parking lot, and D is saying this conclusion is not solid because shopping mall parking lots are unrepresentative of parking spaces in general. Doesn't that sound like weakening the support bewteen the premise and conclusion? It is quite hard for me now to see how D is irrelevant.
I am having trouble understanding what it means to "weaken" the reasoning. I know it means weakening the support, but am just confused how that would appear in this kind of question. Is it essentially asking which answer choice is a stronger alternative to the conclusion given in the question?
If B said "leaving a parking space..." would it be the right answer? Then it would just be flat our saying the hypothesis in the stimulus was wrong, making it the correct choice right?
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.
82 comments
Honk more, motherfucker
Can then the alternative hypothesis be thought of as a premise that weakens the conclusion?
"If there's a jerk honking impatiently..." lol so funny.
I don't know why but I have had a much easier time with questions that are 4/5 or 5/5 difficulty but a much harder time with 1/5 and 2/5
My brain works backwards for these questions for some reason. Can someone simplify the relationship between the conclusion and the answer choices for me?
I find the weaken question types to be easiest for me to navigate through thus far:)
My prediction was that if people are honking, drivers will tend to want to be a dick right back, which led me to (E). Now I know that that only accounts for half the phenomenon, and not for those drivers waiting quietly
#Feedback, please reveal the answer choices at once. it gives most of us a better idea to compare and see. PLEASE. I know they have the questions, and i can look it up, but it misses the whole point for me seeing the question first time, while you guys are explaining it.
What threw me off about answer choice A and made me find AC C more attractive was the wording in A. The phrase “perform maneuvers with their cars” felt too vague—it could refer to backing out of a parking space, but also pulling in, parallel parking, using a roundabout, etc. It wasn’t specific enough.
On the other hand, answer choice C clearly refers to maneuvering a car out of a parking space while another car is waiting to enter it. That felt more relevant and specific to the scenario.
It also made me question the premise of the original argument. Maybe people aren't being possessive of their parking spots—maybe it just takes time and care to back out when someone’s waiting to take your spot. So the delay might be due to difficulty, not intention.
If I were under time pressure, I feel like I’d choose C, but I’m struggling to get a solid grasp on causal reasoning questions like this. #help
My prediction: The drivers are more cautious when another car is waiting, so as to avoid hitting the waiting car. The honking causes them to slow down even more, because it makes them think that they're about to hit another car.
I find D very tempting.
The author made a general conclusion based on observations from a shopping mall parking lot, and D is saying this conclusion is not solid because shopping mall parking lots are unrepresentative of parking spaces in general. Doesn't that sound like weakening the support bewteen the premise and conclusion? It is quite hard for me now to see how D is irrelevant.
Could someone please help clarify this for me?
I am having trouble understanding what it means to "weaken" the reasoning. I know it means weakening the support, but am just confused how that would appear in this kind of question. Is it essentially asking which answer choice is a stronger alternative to the conclusion given in the question?
honk some more motherfucka
Loving these lessons. Respect 🫡
i keep eliminating wrong answers for the wrong reasons so task failed successfully i guess
My biggest issue is brushing past seemingly small details like I did here, which the evil test writers are banking on. Grim
I knew E was wrong, but the toxic side of my heart wanted it to be true. I love being petty.
Would C be a better answer if A wasn't it.
Not trying to justify it at all, rather, does the MOST in most weakening make it that A covers more of a whole base compared to C?
This passage was hilarious! LOL
I feel like these are being over complicated in the video by bringing in a bunch of other language.
getting them right but my timing is soooooo shit
Why can't this explanation be similar to a drill set? Like give the readers an opportunity to do the question.
#feedback
If B said "leaving a parking space..." would it be the right answer? Then it would just be flat our saying the hypothesis in the stimulus was wrong, making it the correct choice right?
nah im actually so cooked
Goku help me pls