Question 1 was a bit confusing for me to see that it was an argument. I could not find the conclusion and felt like the writer was just giving information.
For question 5: couldn't the conclusion just be "businesses should adopt policies" because the such as daycare benefits feels like just an example or is the whole sentence a conclusion?
Q5: The last sentence merely re-states the first part of the first sentence. Hard to distinguish between the two statements and figure out which supports which, since they're saying the same thing.
Can the Quiz Instructions be updated to say, "Identify and bracket premises and the major conclusion for the following arguments."? For questions 3 & 5, I understood the major vs. minor conclusion but also put the minor conclusion in brackets that I used to identify conclusions. Or is that completely wrong since the minor conclusions are primarily used as major premises?
i think with the sub conclusions there should be another color to clearly see all 3. after some initial struggle i got all the conclusions and premises correct based off red and blue but when you watch the video and he explains he breaks down further and thats were i need the most help with
As most of the readers the conclusions and premises are clear but the questions & answers do not clearly identify the sub conclusions in the answers (or premises that also act as sub conclusions). Any chance that could be identified. Perhaps #5 is the only question with a clear sub conclusion etc.
I'm quite confused on how Question 5 is labeled as only having one conclusion. Is the first portion (Business has an interest...to care for children) not a sub-conclusion? My thoughts behind this are that, seemingly, the author is trying to convince us that the said business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children because of X. In this case, "because those children...managers of the future" becomes the supporting claim for both the first portion and the main conclusion that follows. Let me know your thoughts.
On Question 3, I found one sub-conclusion giving access will time wasting, but I thought that patients aren't going to ask for access to their records anyway would be a premise because it was just a reason for the main conclusion. I didn't see that it was another sub-conclusion.
Q2 threw me for a loop because "the government is certain to respond," doesn't appear to be supported by anything. Following the indicator words, and sentence structure, that sentence appears to be the conclusion, but it premises are not connected in any way b/c it's so vague.
Maybe I was being too literal though, since the purpose of this exercise is mainly to identify.
While I was able to quickly find the regular premises and conclusion, I struggled distinguishing the sub-conclusions/major premises. Anyone have any advice on how to differentiate these?
Question #1 does not intuitively seem like there is an argument. The question appears similar to that of research questions that did not have arguments in previous videos. If someone could carefully explain how this question differs from previous research questions that did not have arguments, that would be great. To further clarify, the last part of the statement in question 1, despite containing the transition word "because" appears merely to describe aspects about the measuring technique rather than clear up or state something definitively about the importance of the measuring technique in relation to something else. Any #help is greatly appreciated.
Main premise / sub-conclusion: [this is a given truth but the premise provides some, albeit weak, support]
- the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
Conclusion: [albeit needing an assumption that places such as southern Africa are cool]
- Measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years [which is within a million years]
I'm having some difficulty differentiating sub-conclusions from premise. For the purpose of this exercise, should we only be seeking the major conclusion and considering sub-conclusions as premise?
At first I did not understand how Question 1 was an argument. Until seeing that the first sentence states it can obtain dates for sites up to 200K years old. This is a limit. In the next sentence we state that it can obtain accurate dates from 1Mil years in colder regions. There is a clear discrepancy between these two conclusions, since it's the same technique. The evidence provided is that the decomposition rate is slower in colder climates.
Despite correctly identifying the conclusion, I didn't think Q1 was an argument. It read more like a statement of facts. Did anyone else think so too?
33
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
191 comments
aye 5/5
Question 1 was a bit confusing for me to see that it was an argument. I could not find the conclusion and felt like the writer was just giving information.
The trick I use to find the conclusion is to think of the phrase "it therefore follows..."
For question 5: couldn't the conclusion just be "businesses should adopt policies" because the such as daycare benefits feels like just an example or is the whole sentence a conclusion?
It's so exciting when you feel yourself improving! 5/5 here :))
Q5: The last sentence merely re-states the first part of the first sentence. Hard to distinguish between the two statements and figure out which supports which, since they're saying the same thing.
5/5 I struggled to locate the sub conclusion but I understood the premises and main conclusion easily
Can the Quiz Instructions be updated to say, "Identify and bracket premises and the major conclusion for the following arguments."? For questions 3 & 5, I understood the major vs. minor conclusion but also put the minor conclusion in brackets that I used to identify conclusions. Or is that completely wrong since the minor conclusions are primarily used as major premises?
i think with the sub conclusions there should be another color to clearly see all 3. after some initial struggle i got all the conclusions and premises correct based off red and blue but when you watch the video and he explains he breaks down further and thats were i need the most help with
As most of the readers the conclusions and premises are clear but the questions & answers do not clearly identify the sub conclusions in the answers (or premises that also act as sub conclusions). Any chance that could be identified. Perhaps #5 is the only question with a clear sub conclusion etc.
I'm quite confused on how Question 5 is labeled as only having one conclusion. Is the first portion (Business has an interest...to care for children) not a sub-conclusion? My thoughts behind this are that, seemingly, the author is trying to convince us that the said business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children because of X. In this case, "because those children...managers of the future" becomes the supporting claim for both the first portion and the main conclusion that follows. Let me know your thoughts.
On Question 3, I found one sub-conclusion giving access will time wasting, but I thought that patients aren't going to ask for access to their records anyway would be a premise because it was just a reason for the main conclusion. I didn't see that it was another sub-conclusion.
I was 100% convinced question 1 was a fact-set and so was not an argument. Can someone explain to me how its an argument? Please and thank you!!
Q2 threw me for a loop because "the government is certain to respond," doesn't appear to be supported by anything. Following the indicator words, and sentence structure, that sentence appears to be the conclusion, but it premises are not connected in any way b/c it's so vague.
Maybe I was being too literal though, since the purpose of this exercise is mainly to identify.
5/5!
While I was able to quickly find the regular premises and conclusion, I struggled distinguishing the sub-conclusions/major premises. Anyone have any advice on how to differentiate these?
Question #1 does not intuitively seem like there is an argument. The question appears similar to that of research questions that did not have arguments in previous videos. If someone could carefully explain how this question differs from previous research questions that did not have arguments, that would be great. To further clarify, the last part of the statement in question 1, despite containing the transition word "because" appears merely to describe aspects about the measuring technique rather than clear up or state something definitively about the importance of the measuring technique in relation to something else. Any #help is greatly appreciated.
Question 1 feels like there's no argument; neither claim increases the likelihood of the truth of the other. Would love clarification :)
Like others, I also am not clear on Question 1
I would have thought:
Premise:
- decomposition is slower in cool climates
Main premise / sub-conclusion: [this is a given truth but the premise provides some, albeit weak, support]
- the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.
Conclusion: [albeit needing an assumption that places such as southern Africa are cool]
- Measurements of the extent of amino acid decomposition in fragments of eggshell found at archaeological sites in such places as southern Africa can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites up to 200,000 years [which is within a million years]
I'm having some difficulty differentiating sub-conclusions from premise. For the purpose of this exercise, should we only be seeking the major conclusion and considering sub-conclusions as premise?
as a reader, how do i know that question 1 is not simply stating a set of facts. How is it clear that the other is giving an argument?
At first I did not understand how Question 1 was an argument. Until seeing that the first sentence states it can obtain dates for sites up to 200K years old. This is a limit. In the next sentence we state that it can obtain accurate dates from 1Mil years in colder regions. There is a clear discrepancy between these two conclusions, since it's the same technique. The evidence provided is that the decomposition rate is slower in colder climates.
I am still confused by Question 1!!!
Will LSAT questions always have a conclusion?
Despite correctly identifying the conclusion, I didn't think Q1 was an argument. It read more like a statement of facts. Did anyone else think so too?