I lowkey felt like A was too obvious so I literally crossed it out both times. I was like nah this is too obvious and makes too much sense, theres no way its the answer...great
Remember, y'all, if this section doesn't come easily to you, that is okay! Knowing where you struggle should give you confidence in your study path. You know where to work, you just gotta do it, and the ease will follow with time. Know thy enemy!
Honestly, sometimes if you're struggling its burn out. Take a day, do absolutely nothing or things you like and FEEL NO SHAME ABOUT IT. Give yourself some GRACE and a break. I promise you when you return the next day to study you will feel and see the difference.
I think the confusion in this one comes from the conclusion being so general in relation to the premise. The premise and the correct answer has a considerably stronger support than the initial conclusion in the stim.
Sometimes in weaken questions it's better to ignore the conclusion in the stim and just figure out what is the strongest conclusion in the answer choices. Kind of thinking of it like a most strongly supported question in your mind.
Still confused as to how fear over losing one's job (AC A) is not considered social inertia. If everyone fears losing their job to technology even if said technology may make them more safe and or comfortable the social inertia of people to not lose their jobs causes them to resist the innovations. That would validate the stimulus not weaken it. Even the explanation states social inertia is a desire for things not to change. One losing their job certainly would be a change thus social inertia by that logic would be in fact be desiring not to lose one's job due to tech innovations.
Just confused at how we can draw the line that A's concern is not social inertia when it perfectly fits the bill and definition of social inertia. Would love to hear some takes and opinions on how those who got it right drew a distinction between A and social inertia.
Also please point out any flaws in my understanding. I really want to grasp this!
@AnibalCPerez I also assumed job retention was related to comfort. I hope that someone responds to you soon.
I've been trying to brainstorm ideas that might help, but I'm not 100% positive.
I think it could be because job loss impacts comfort and safety outside of work, and not physically at work.
It is an alternative hypothesis so that is really what it has going for it. It made a little more sense to me when I replaced the original hypothesis with answer choice A.
I was getting these all wrong on the diagnostic test, but haven't gotten one wrong yet here. I was thinking about the questions backwards and trying to undermine premises instead of support. I discounted every single correct answer because I was like 'no, that's just another way to explain this phenomenon; why would that weaken the argument'. It's crazy how just a little clarity on what the test writers are actually asking for can turn a question from impossible to fairly obvious.
I understood answer choice A ("People correctly believe that technical innovations often cause job loss") to be an example of "social inertia", therefore strengthening the argument, which caused me not to choose it. I ended up choosing C, but wasn't confident with this answer either but I'm still having trouble understanding how A weakens the argument???
I also chose C and don't understand how A is the correct answer. Even with the explanation in the video, I don't get how A undermines the stimulus of "Social inertia....."
AC A is offering an alternative hypothesis. It's not required to know what "social inertia" is here. All we need to know is that AC A offers an alternate hypothesis to the particular scenario in the stimulus. Instead of resisting due. to social inertia, AC A states that the resistance is there because of a fear of losing jobs. Answer choice C references. a scenario we shouldn't even care about. The stimulus references people who resisted, why should we care about the people who did not resist? In addition, it is fully possible that some people embraced technology in this scenario. The stimulus mentions there are "plenty of examples" of people resisting, but it does not say that "all" people resisted.
AC A provides an alternative hypothesis that instead of "social inertia" being the reason people resist, it is the correct belief that new tech causes job losses.
A trick is to filter out the original conclusion and think, "what could be another explanation to this phenomenon" which almost always weakens the original conclusion.
One reason why A is better than E is because E dissproves and attacks the validity of the presmide along with the hypothesis, while A replaces the hypothesis only, which JY says should be the goal instead of touching the premise. You are not trying to disprove anything, just find an alternative to the hypothesis.
I cannot understand how A doesnt strengthen the argument. If people believe that technological advancement can result in job loss, then they would resist the advancement. That strengthens the argument. What the heck am i missing? #help
Another way I saw it is that weakening can include conceding parts of the stimulus' conclusion but then explaining why its missing a key piece that makes the alternative answer better (hence weakening the original conclusion by adding to it). In this case I read A as not excluding the possibility that people do not change (social inertia); but that two things can be true. People can still not want change, but there is a greater reason that overrides social inertia. For A is that keeping a job is more important. In order of more to less importance A could imply: maintaining jobs, social inertia, comfort, ect.
The way that I viewed it is that A may strengthen the first sentence but the question stem is asking us to weaken the reasoning of why this phenomenon is happening- which is included in the second sentence. The author is saying that this phenomenon (explained in the first sentence) is happening because of "social inertia" but answer A is saying "no, its because people will lose their jobs." Hope that helps!
Yup, by providing an alternative explanation that is how answer choice is weakening the argument. It says social inertia was responsible for the phenomenon, but answer choice A weakens it by saying, "People correctly believe technological innovations cause job loss," which causes the people to act in this manner.
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.
121 comments
Definitely taking more time to understand the questions than RRE but I am getting them right!
Something that helped me that may help someone else:
It helps to think of the “strong ↔ unknown ↔ weak” scale when thinking about these problems and how they relate to the author’s hypothesis
Anything near undermining strength (aka sliding towards the weaken side) on “most weaken problems” has a high possibility of being the correct answer
On Weaken questions: Eliminate answers that strengthen or are neutral; prioritize answers that move the conclusion toward weaker in a relevant way.
Anything supporting strength (aka sliding towards the strong side) on “most strengthen" problems has a high possibility of being the correct answer
On Strengthen questions: Eliminate answers that weaken or are neutral; prioritize answers that move the conclusion toward stronger in a relevant way.
I lowkey felt like A was too obvious so I literally crossed it out both times. I was like nah this is too obvious and makes too much sense, theres no way its the answer...great
@jrm98 LOL might just be your brain getting better at spotting right answers and your confidence being like neh...
Remember, y'all, if this section doesn't come easily to you, that is okay! Knowing where you struggle should give you confidence in your study path. You know where to work, you just gotta do it, and the ease will follow with time. Know thy enemy!
Not to sound smug, but how was this a 4-star question? I thought this one was super easy.
@ElliotRosin maybe because common sense was pretty much giving you the answer...the problem is when you actually have apply logic
finally i got one of these right
Honestly, sometimes if you're struggling its burn out. Take a day, do absolutely nothing or things you like and FEEL NO SHAME ABOUT IT. Give yourself some GRACE and a break. I promise you when you return the next day to study you will feel and see the difference.
I am really struggling with this section
I struggled sooo much with MBT and RRE but am on an honor run with weaken questions--timing and accuracy is near perfect
WE each have our own unique strengths and weaknesses--don't judge yourself by the sections you struggled most on!
lol i had to do a dirty google and figure out wth 'social inertia' is...
@Sunday_Blues13 Me too!!! Probably what made me a minute over ...
man this is the question type i am gonna struggle with
i feel so stupid with how much i've been struggling with this question type 😭 then hearing the explanation makes so much sense i feel silly.
@mzughaerr I am in the same boat as you
Another correct one in about half the time! That's always encouraging!
I think the confusion in this one comes from the conclusion being so general in relation to the premise. The premise and the correct answer has a considerably stronger support than the initial conclusion in the stim.
Sometimes in weaken questions it's better to ignore the conclusion in the stim and just figure out what is the strongest conclusion in the answer choices. Kind of thinking of it like a most strongly supported question in your mind.
Still confused as to how fear over losing one's job (AC A) is not considered social inertia. If everyone fears losing their job to technology even if said technology may make them more safe and or comfortable the social inertia of people to not lose their jobs causes them to resist the innovations. That would validate the stimulus not weaken it. Even the explanation states social inertia is a desire for things not to change. One losing their job certainly would be a change thus social inertia by that logic would be in fact be desiring not to lose one's job due to tech innovations.
Just confused at how we can draw the line that A's concern is not social inertia when it perfectly fits the bill and definition of social inertia. Would love to hear some takes and opinions on how those who got it right drew a distinction between A and social inertia.
Also please point out any flaws in my understanding. I really want to grasp this!
Thanks!
@AnibalCPerez I also assumed job retention was related to comfort. I hope that someone responds to you soon.
I've been trying to brainstorm ideas that might help, but I'm not 100% positive.
I think it could be because job loss impacts comfort and safety outside of work, and not physically at work.
It is an alternative hypothesis so that is really what it has going for it. It made a little more sense to me when I replaced the original hypothesis with answer choice A.
I was confused by "correctly" in A. I thought that was too big of an assumption. When in the video it says thats what helps makes A correct.
I liked this question. Your explanations of the incorrect answers was really helpful here.
I was getting these all wrong on the diagnostic test, but haven't gotten one wrong yet here. I was thinking about the questions backwards and trying to undermine premises instead of support. I discounted every single correct answer because I was like 'no, that's just another way to explain this phenomenon; why would that weaken the argument'. It's crazy how just a little clarity on what the test writers are actually asking for can turn a question from impossible to fairly obvious.
Same! I feel much better prepared for these moving forwards
I got it right but wow A felt like a bait answer.
i felt the exact same way!
I understood answer choice A ("People correctly believe that technical innovations often cause job loss") to be an example of "social inertia", therefore strengthening the argument, which caused me not to choose it. I ended up choosing C, but wasn't confident with this answer either but I'm still having trouble understanding how A weakens the argument???
I also chose C and don't understand how A is the correct answer. Even with the explanation in the video, I don't get how A undermines the stimulus of "Social inertia....."
AC A is offering an alternative hypothesis. It's not required to know what "social inertia" is here. All we need to know is that AC A offers an alternate hypothesis to the particular scenario in the stimulus. Instead of resisting due. to social inertia, AC A states that the resistance is there because of a fear of losing jobs. Answer choice C references. a scenario we shouldn't even care about. The stimulus references people who resisted, why should we care about the people who did not resist? In addition, it is fully possible that some people embraced technology in this scenario. The stimulus mentions there are "plenty of examples" of people resisting, but it does not say that "all" people resisted.
AC A provides an alternative hypothesis that instead of "social inertia" being the reason people resist, it is the correct belief that new tech causes job losses.
I was feeling that as well. "Social inertia" is extremely vague/broad. Bad question.
Actively getting my ass handed to me here.
A trick is to filter out the original conclusion and think, "what could be another explanation to this phenomenon" which almost always weakens the original conclusion.
yes this is 100% accurate! It helped me crack this question.
One reason why A is better than E is because E dissproves and attacks the validity of the presmide along with the hypothesis, while A replaces the hypothesis only, which JY says should be the goal instead of touching the premise. You are not trying to disprove anything, just find an alternative to the hypothesis.
Chose A before target time then chose C in blind review :(
Shareholders were not happy with the word "inertia" thrown into this sentence!
#WKN dropped 23% in open market
Did it in 34 seconds. YAY!
I cannot understand how A doesnt strengthen the argument. If people believe that technological advancement can result in job loss, then they would resist the advancement. That strengthens the argument. What the heck am i missing? #help
Another way I saw it is that weakening can include conceding parts of the stimulus' conclusion but then explaining why its missing a key piece that makes the alternative answer better (hence weakening the original conclusion by adding to it). In this case I read A as not excluding the possibility that people do not change (social inertia); but that two things can be true. People can still not want change, but there is a greater reason that overrides social inertia. For A is that keeping a job is more important. In order of more to less importance A could imply: maintaining jobs, social inertia, comfort, ect.
The way that I viewed it is that A may strengthen the first sentence but the question stem is asking us to weaken the reasoning of why this phenomenon is happening- which is included in the second sentence. The author is saying that this phenomenon (explained in the first sentence) is happening because of "social inertia" but answer A is saying "no, its because people will lose their jobs." Hope that helps!
Yup, by providing an alternative explanation that is how answer choice is weakening the argument. It says social inertia was responsible for the phenomenon, but answer choice A weakens it by saying, "People correctly believe technological innovations cause job loss," which causes the people to act in this manner.