The answer choice C would definitely have been a great answer choice that strengthens the stimulus' choice. Despite not being 100% certain that there is a direct causal relationship between evoking emotions and bias, we can reasonably deduce that those who oppose the freeway can simply appeal to people's emotions to reinforce their points instead of providing legitimate, practical, and logical reasons why building a freeway would not be a good thing.
Got it right - the part in the stem where it mentions that people against the freeway were 2 to 1 has to be explained - D explains this because it tells us that twice as many people were already against the highway.
@meepmeep You'll get better with practice! I really wasn't a fan of RRE questions but practice helps. I went from gettin 0/5 to 3/5 (not the best, but better), practice, practice, practice! Goodluck!
#feedback Originally, I was frustrated with the amount of time JY put into alternating the ACs/Question types to show how the question could work given different scenarios. It just seemed too confusing and a waste of time. After reviewing this question, I now see why its important to view the questions in different ways. Understanding the unity in logical reasoning questions makes for better overall understanding. All of the question types are linked in terms of thought process in some way shape or form. It may seem confusing at first, but once it clicks--it clicks, and you likely will start relying less on identifying question types and simply just applying, well--logical reasoning!
@legallyhaya The conclusion is that the TV program is biased because of the ratio of the interviews of people for:against, so the path of least resistance would be to explain the ratio without the program's involvement.
So, if the ratio was already there before the program aired and they match, then the TV program is actually not biased in portraying that ratio, ergo the hypothesis is weakened.
@legallyhaya The conclusion is the last sentence. D is similar to a part of the premise. D is correct based on the phrase "before the program aired" because it predates the news coverage, suggesting that more people were opposed to the freeway than in favor of it before the news conducted interviews.
like seriously, please bring the "all AC at once" back, cause i understood why D was correct (somewhat) and now going through other AC, i forget what was the reasoning for D? like come on mannn, i am so mad. since they started doing that, i am not learning anything
I dislike this question. Interpreting bias in this way seems a bit thick. Just because one side of an issue enjoys more support does not allow a news provider to cover or give exposure to that one side of the issue disproportionately and remain bias free. Imagine a panel debate with 4 on one side and 1 on the other of an issue. Even if these numbers were representative of the public, surely no reasonable person could conclude that the debate structure is unbiased. Bias relates to the evenhandedness of the coverage of any given topic, and a reasonable evaluation of its support, not how many supporters it touts. An argument is no less if true if it has 1 or 1 million supporters. The grand leap of an assumption that this question requires to reason that proportionally being similar or larger in the general population than in the interviews is any sort of weakener to the claim of bias is absurd. This question stupidly equates bias and representativeness. D is still correct, as all others are worse, but it is a bad question pure and simple.
In the end I chose D but doesn't C seem like a potential explanation too? Maybe the news station aired more interviews with people against the new freeway because those people gave more emotional interviews, which made for better TV. So C does weaken the argument. However, D is right because it weakens the argument more.
The way I have explained it to myself is AC C requires a greater assumption 'leap' than AC D does.
AC C requires we assume more emotional = better TV; What if both groups (for and against the freeway) were very emotional, the people against were just a little bit more emotional? Technically they would still be 'more emotional' but if both groups are emotional, both interviews would have been emotional thus made for good TV.
AC D is just less of an assumption 'leap'. If, from a pool of possible interviewees (people who would be affected by the proposed freeway-according to the sim) there are OVER TWICE as many people against than are for the freeway, it makes sense that the against are 2x more represented.
I'm still confused on the difference between Weaken and RRE questions. They keep trying to highlight a difference and I don't quite understand it. If anyone could explain that would be great!
For weaken questions, what discredits the stimulus the most? The answer should be an "AHA" thats why this conclusion/hypothesis can't be true.
For RRE, remove your biases from the stimulus and read it as if you are not involved at all mentally. Read it as if someone if telling you of all possibilities of different outcomes and choose the best one that fits with the 'story' presented.
Prior to your explanations of how to attack "weakens" question, I was horrible at them. I'm much better now. This explanation was better by the way. Showing how to determine the weaken answer, and THEN showing relation/conversion to RRE flowed better. (IMO)
Reasoning is the logic or rationale behind the argument's conclusion.
This is the “because” part of the argument—the connection between the evidence and the claim.
Example:
"Online classes lead to higher test scores because students have more time to study."
The reasoning is that more time to study leads to better performance.
2. Result (What is the argument trying to prove?)
The result is the conclusion or outcome that the argument is attempting to explain or justify.
In most cases, it’s the claim the author is making.
Example:
"Therefore, online classes are more effective than in-person classes." The result is that online classes lead to higher scores and are therefore better.
3. Evidence (What supports the conclusion?)
Evidence is the data, studies, or observations the argument uses to support the reasoning and conclusion.
This is the “because of” part, which could be facts, examples, or statistics.
Example:
"A recent study showed that students in online classes scored 10% higher on average than those in in-person classes." The evidence is the study showing higher test scores in online classes.
I initially thought A, but in my blind review, I saw the appeal of D, and though still skeptical, chose D.
My thing with A though is that I assumed that because most ppl watched the program and were aware of the controversy b4 hand, they would've formed their own opinions, and wouldn't be swayed by the TV program... however, typing this out now, I see that these were a lot of assumptions being made lol, and that A has nothing to with the actual TV show itself... Thanks for coming to my TedTalk of my brain thought process I guess haha :)
Continuously refereeing to a different question type, which requires a different strategy, does makes this new type of questions much more confusing and difficult to resolve.
Yes I wish he didnt, I get that he does it to "help" but it kinda throws a wrench in my thought process. #feedback... maybe say it once or twice but not in a bunch of them.
I am having a hard time changing my thought process with answering weaken questions. I'm hoping with practice I can get better, but it seems like there's a long road ahead!
What I like to think when answering these types of questions is, "Whoa.. Whoa... Whoa.. there author, wait a second I hear you but, how do you know thats THE answer to the problem (conclusion). Sure it could be AN explanation, but is it THE explanation?" As obvious as it sounds I am just trying to be a critic a-hole to the author and be like could it be this or that.
Author: people are rude because they have overdue bills.
Me: Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second I get people are rude but how do you know theyre rude because of the bills? There could be a million reasons that people are rude. They dont like your face... Their spouses make them mad... etc...
So I accidentally read the question wrong and I chose E because I felt like it strengthen the argument I thought the question said strengthen if I chose E would that mean that that is what strengthens it the most, if this question would've been switched? Also, if I chose E and knew that it was a weekend question would that mean that I would automatically identify that this is strengthening the argument, so I need to cancel it out?#feedback#feedback#feedback
Could you also do negation tests on answers to see if they are correct/incorrect? For example, negating E would translate the AC into saying that the business interests would not be harmed by the freeway's construction. This negation makes AC E weaken the conclusion, and therefore, you know that AC E in its regular, non-negated form is incorrect. I know this seems completely backward, especially if you can read AC E as it is and immediately understand that it doesn't weaken the conclusion. But I've used this method for some more complex questions, and it has helped me become more confident in my answers.
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.
74 comments
I'm so dumb and picked B. I should make sure that the answer is specific to the argument and not pick one that makes a broad statement
These easier weaken questions REALLY make me overthink the AC's
The answer choice C would definitely have been a great answer choice that strengthens the stimulus' choice. Despite not being 100% certain that there is a direct causal relationship between evoking emotions and bias, we can reasonably deduce that those who oppose the freeway can simply appeal to people's emotions to reinforce their points instead of providing legitimate, practical, and logical reasons why building a freeway would not be a good thing.
Got it right - the part in the stem where it mentions that people against the freeway were 2 to 1 has to be explained - D explains this because it tells us that twice as many people were already against the highway.
Yay! 31 secs over because I second-guessed that, but I got it.
Got it wrong. Assumed that emotional strength of argument = outnumbering = program bias, when that's not true. Got it right on BR after realizing this
im terrible at these
@meepmeep You'll get better with practice! I really wasn't a fan of RRE questions but practice helps. I went from gettin 0/5 to 3/5 (not the best, but better), practice, practice, practice! Goodluck!
#feedback Originally, I was frustrated with the amount of time JY put into alternating the ACs/Question types to show how the question could work given different scenarios. It just seemed too confusing and a waste of time. After reviewing this question, I now see why its important to view the questions in different ways. Understanding the unity in logical reasoning questions makes for better overall understanding. All of the question types are linked in terms of thought process in some way shape or form. It may seem confusing at first, but once it clicks--it clicks, and you likely will start relying less on identifying question types and simply just applying, well--logical reasoning!
Isnt D saying the same thing as the conclusion?? I am so lost
@legallyhaya The conclusion is that the TV program is biased because of the ratio of the interviews of people for:against, so the path of least resistance would be to explain the ratio without the program's involvement.
So, if the ratio was already there before the program aired and they match, then the TV program is actually not biased in portraying that ratio, ergo the hypothesis is weakened.
@legallyhaya The conclusion is the last sentence. D is similar to a part of the premise. D is correct based on the phrase "before the program aired" because it predates the news coverage, suggesting that more people were opposed to the freeway than in favor of it before the news conducted interviews.
like seriously, please bring the "all AC at once" back, cause i understood why D was correct (somewhat) and now going through other AC, i forget what was the reasoning for D? like come on mannn, i am so mad. since they started doing that, i am not learning anything
I fell for E because I thought that it was the businesses who were biased and not the news station but I guess it was an unreasonable assumption
@EthanSegerman same here.
@EthanSegerman Same here, I need to read more lol
I dislike this question. Interpreting bias in this way seems a bit thick. Just because one side of an issue enjoys more support does not allow a news provider to cover or give exposure to that one side of the issue disproportionately and remain bias free. Imagine a panel debate with 4 on one side and 1 on the other of an issue. Even if these numbers were representative of the public, surely no reasonable person could conclude that the debate structure is unbiased. Bias relates to the evenhandedness of the coverage of any given topic, and a reasonable evaluation of its support, not how many supporters it touts. An argument is no less if true if it has 1 or 1 million supporters. The grand leap of an assumption that this question requires to reason that proportionally being similar or larger in the general population than in the interviews is any sort of weakener to the claim of bias is absurd. This question stupidly equates bias and representativeness. D is still correct, as all others are worse, but it is a bad question pure and simple.
In the end I chose D but doesn't C seem like a potential explanation too? Maybe the news station aired more interviews with people against the new freeway because those people gave more emotional interviews, which made for better TV. So C does weaken the argument. However, D is right because it weakens the argument more.
@SimonNavarrete I thought the same exact thing!
The way I have explained it to myself is AC C requires a greater assumption 'leap' than AC D does.
AC C requires we assume more emotional = better TV; What if both groups (for and against the freeway) were very emotional, the people against were just a little bit more emotional? Technically they would still be 'more emotional' but if both groups are emotional, both interviews would have been emotional thus made for good TV.
AC D is just less of an assumption 'leap'. If, from a pool of possible interviewees (people who would be affected by the proposed freeway-according to the sim) there are OVER TWICE as many people against than are for the freeway, it makes sense that the against are 2x more represented.
@SimonNavarrete Answer choice C infers that the TV is in fact biased therefore, making the conclusion stronger not weaker.
I'm still confused on the difference between Weaken and RRE questions. They keep trying to highlight a difference and I don't quite understand it. If anyone could explain that would be great!
@IsabellaP Hi! These notes have helped me.
For weaken questions, what discredits the stimulus the most? The answer should be an "AHA" thats why this conclusion/hypothesis can't be true.
For RRE, remove your biases from the stimulus and read it as if you are not involved at all mentally. Read it as if someone if telling you of all possibilities of different outcomes and choose the best one that fits with the 'story' presented.
Hopes this helps.
@Alondra_Sanchez you explained this very well!
Prior to your explanations of how to attack "weakens" question, I was horrible at them. I'm much better now. This explanation was better by the way. Showing how to determine the weaken answer, and THEN showing relation/conversion to RRE flowed better. (IMO)
Reasoning (Why is the argument making the claim?)
Reasoning is the logic or rationale behind the argument's conclusion.
This is the “because” part of the argument—the connection between the evidence and the claim.
Example:
"Online classes lead to higher test scores because students have more time to study."
The reasoning is that more time to study leads to better performance.
2. Result (What is the argument trying to prove?)
The result is the conclusion or outcome that the argument is attempting to explain or justify.
In most cases, it’s the claim the author is making.
Example:
"Therefore, online classes are more effective than in-person classes." The result is that online classes lead to higher scores and are therefore better.
3. Evidence (What supports the conclusion?)
Evidence is the data, studies, or observations the argument uses to support the reasoning and conclusion.
This is the “because of” part, which could be facts, examples, or statistics.
Example:
"A recent study showed that students in online classes scored 10% higher on average than those in in-person classes." The evidence is the study showing higher test scores in online classes.
Got it right but it took me a little over 2 min.
I initially thought A, but in my blind review, I saw the appeal of D, and though still skeptical, chose D.
My thing with A though is that I assumed that because most ppl watched the program and were aware of the controversy b4 hand, they would've formed their own opinions, and wouldn't be swayed by the TV program... however, typing this out now, I see that these were a lot of assumptions being made lol, and that A has nothing to with the actual TV show itself... Thanks for coming to my TedTalk of my brain thought process I guess haha :)
I asked myslef, " What if they interviewed too many people against it?"
This anticipation allowed me to find correct answer (D).
Continuously refereeing to a different question type, which requires a different strategy, does makes this new type of questions much more confusing and difficult to resolve.
I'm glad I'm not the only one struggling when he brings up how you would solve it if it were RRE.
It's even worse when taking the test. You can't get into a rhythm.
Yes I wish he didnt, I get that he does it to "help" but it kinda throws a wrench in my thought process. #feedback... maybe say it once or twice but not in a bunch of them.
I am having a hard time changing my thought process with answering weaken questions. I'm hoping with practice I can get better, but it seems like there's a long road ahead!
What I like to think when answering these types of questions is, "Whoa.. Whoa... Whoa.. there author, wait a second I hear you but, how do you know thats THE answer to the problem (conclusion). Sure it could be AN explanation, but is it THE explanation?" As obvious as it sounds I am just trying to be a critic a-hole to the author and be like could it be this or that.
Author: people are rude because they have overdue bills.
Me: Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second I get people are rude but how do you know theyre rude because of the bills? There could be a million reasons that people are rude. They dont like your face... Their spouses make them mad... etc...
Hope that helps.
agreed!!
So I accidentally read the question wrong and I chose E because I felt like it strengthen the argument I thought the question said strengthen if I chose E would that mean that that is what strengthens it the most, if this question would've been switched? Also, if I chose E and knew that it was a weekend question would that mean that I would automatically identify that this is strengthening the argument, so I need to cancel it out?#feedback#feedback#feedback
Could you also do negation tests on answers to see if they are correct/incorrect? For example, negating E would translate the AC into saying that the business interests would not be harmed by the freeway's construction. This negation makes AC E weaken the conclusion, and therefore, you know that AC E in its regular, non-negated form is incorrect. I know this seems completely backward, especially if you can read AC E as it is and immediately understand that it doesn't weaken the conclusion. But I've used this method for some more complex questions, and it has helped me become more confident in my answers.
Anyone else here taking the November test and feeling so behind?
me! trying my best to catch up but worrying ill have to move my test to january if i don't feel ready:(
Me!! I thought I was doing decent but now I'm so confused eek!
First time for everything! Taking it in October, don't be discouraged:)) You can do it.
yepp, mee
Same. I'm taking it next month and I feel like I'll have to take it again in January...
Literally me, I moved.
same!! but I'm thinking of taking it anyway and if need be retaking in January
I am glad we are in this together #teamspirit
Me too! We've got this!
Yes!! I feel the same, if we need it so be it.
this is the first time my second guessing paid off because i picked D on the blind review