Am I going crazy or is Answer choice E in the video completely missing from the actual question that shows up when clicking "Show question" on this lesson, Lesson 3?
This fuggen question sent me on a deep dive to find why E is correct.
What I gather is ignore premises, were not trying to make them stronger. Their just a distraction. Either this is a BS question or the strat for Strengthen questions is to focus solely on the conclusion.
Conclusion: This shows that snoring can damage the throat of the snorer"
Meaning: Snoring damages throat.
Find the answer that says damage to throat doesnt cause snoring. Its flipped around! Confusing AF, thats how it worked here. The right answer states clearly that the throat abnormalities do NOT cause snoring.
If their all like this or not, this could be another tool in the toolbox to solve these questions. Focus on that conclusion just like weaken and F the rest. Especially if there is NOTHING in the conclusion relating to the past premises. In this case the conclusion doesnt mention the study, biopsies, or different groups of people. Gotta throw all that stuff out. They made it so simple to read but complicated to understand, that must be one of their tricks we need to watch for!!!
Once i re reead the above, then E makes sense!!! Before that I was tied to helping the premise and even the video didnt help explain it to help me understand, or my brain glazed over maybe both but reading the above AFTER I wrote it seems to work, maybe we all need to write it out or just read it? I dunno.
I think strengthen might be harder for me than the others. The other lessons were easy to nail, but this seems more tricky. If answer E was worded in the "more difficult" way, I don't think I would get this one right. With answer E as is, it's fairly easy.
How do you know when the question is talking about a correlation vs Causation? Or is every question like that? Just from reading the stimulus I could not tell it was discussing a correlation. #help #feedback
This is confusing to me- with the correct answer alone, I suppose the explanation makes sense. However, I feel the explanation of why the wrong answers are wrong disregards the actual validity of said answers. How is strengthening the validity of the study, NOT strengthening the conclusion here? This is where my science degree hurts me. My immediate thought, without looking at the answers, was that bolstering the integrity of the study that provides the evidence for the conclusion, would strengthen the hypothesis. If the study has minimal flaws, then the correlation can be taken more seriously. 1- If the patients all had similar health stats, this ELIMINATES alternative hypotheses that these factors could be contributors to the abnormalities, it does not introduce it!! Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean that the reader isn't questioning this. 2- with B and C- "The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles," and, "people who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery."- Do these not strengthen the study? they both verify that the sample has no bias. When reading the stimuli, I immediately poked holes in the logic on the basis that those undergoing throat surgery are likely a biased sample, as people with throat issues are definitely more likely to snore. I just think this is a horrible question trained to trick people with a background in science
another LSAT program I've seen suggested to find the assumption made in the argument (the assumptions used to connect the premise to the conclusion) and test the answer choices against the assumption.
so for weaken questions you'd see if the answer choices destroy the assumption; for strengthen you see if the answer choices make that assumption more likely to be true.
tbh these weaken/strengthen vids on 7sage have been the first to have me really confused so maybe the method above might be more useful? or does this method even work? lmk
in the made up E answer you assume the treatment happened before the less frequent snoring but that is not indicated in the sentence. No timeline in the sentence.
My problem with this explanation is we try to block the alternative hypothesis of abnormalities C→ Snoring, But even if abnormalities C→ Snoring it might still be the case that snoring can damage the throat. It doesn't prevent the hypothesis from being true. So why would I think of this argument in advance somehow?
Am I tripping or did he flip the value symbol when explaining answer choice D?
Saying group S is no more likely should mean "equal to or LESS likely" than group ~S.
I understand his point, and it doesn't change the way that D is an irrelevant wrong answer choice but I just want to confirm that is the case, and also make sure that I'm not taking crazy pills :D
I don't understand the answer. From my understanding, having an abnormality means the throat has been damaged. In this context, does 'abnormality' in medical terms mean it is something you were born with?
i was really confused between c) and e), as a psych grad i picked c) because duh. but the more i thought about it the more i found e) to be right.
c) being wrong because it doesn't address that the argument can be weakened through offering a differing hypothesis. even through listening generalizability, it opens up too much interpretation and assumptions
e) does do that address a weak point in the argument and counteracts it through giving evidence for the cause and effect relationship between snoring and throat abnormalities.
Is there a mistake in the video explanation of the comparative in answer choice D? Doesn't "no more likely" indicate that the surgery group is just as likely (equally likely) or LESS likely to snore than the non-surgery group? The video explanation says just as likely or MORE likely. Am I parsing the grammar incorrectly?
5
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!
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.
78 comments
I initially chose C because I was ~tricked~...
E is correct because it eliminates reverse causation (which in turn eliminates any alternative hypothesis)
we want to strengthen
snore-->abnormalities
So by getting rid of the possibility of
abnormalities-->snore
we do that.
MY THOUGHT PROCESS
snoring can damage throat
a --- wrong bc irrelevant
The study relied on the subjects' self-reporting to determine whether or not they snored frequently.
b --- wrong don't know why the surgery was undertaken. we know that the surgery determined effects of snoring.
The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles.
c --- wrong bc irrelevant
All of the test subjects were of similar age and weight and in similar states of health.
d ---well can't be sure
People who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery.
e ---abnormalities don't cause snoring, given the stim snoring might cause abnormalities. THEREFORE snoring can damage the throat CORRECT
The abnormalities in the throat muscles discovered in the study do not cause snoring.
Possible alternative hypothesis.
A causes B.
B causes A.
C causes A and C
No correlation
Strengthen is basically, stimulus: snoring causes abnormalities (A causes B)
Answer is basically B does not cause A.
this entire section genuinely took away all my hope
Am I going crazy or is Answer choice E in the video completely missing from the actual question that shows up when clicking "Show question" on this lesson, Lesson 3?
This fuggen question sent me on a deep dive to find why E is correct.
What I gather is ignore premises, were not trying to make them stronger. Their just a distraction. Either this is a BS question or the strat for Strengthen questions is to focus solely on the conclusion.
Conclusion: This shows that snoring can damage the throat of the snorer"
Meaning: Snoring damages throat.
Find the answer that says damage to throat doesnt cause snoring. Its flipped around! Confusing AF, thats how it worked here. The right answer states clearly that the throat abnormalities do NOT cause snoring.
If their all like this or not, this could be another tool in the toolbox to solve these questions. Focus on that conclusion just like weaken and F the rest. Especially if there is NOTHING in the conclusion relating to the past premises. In this case the conclusion doesnt mention the study, biopsies, or different groups of people. Gotta throw all that stuff out. They made it so simple to read but complicated to understand, that must be one of their tricks we need to watch for!!!
Once i re reead the above, then E makes sense!!! Before that I was tied to helping the premise and even the video didnt help explain it to help me understand, or my brain glazed over maybe both but reading the above AFTER I wrote it seems to work, maybe we all need to write it out or just read it? I dunno.
I think strengthen might be harder for me than the others. The other lessons were easy to nail, but this seems more tricky. If answer E was worded in the "more difficult" way, I don't think I would get this one right. With answer E as is, it's fairly easy.
How do you know when the question is talking about a correlation vs Causation? Or is every question like that? Just from reading the stimulus I could not tell it was discussing a correlation. #help #feedback
ugh ok.
The headache that has built behind my eyes after this lesson…
This is confusing to me- with the correct answer alone, I suppose the explanation makes sense. However, I feel the explanation of why the wrong answers are wrong disregards the actual validity of said answers. How is strengthening the validity of the study, NOT strengthening the conclusion here? This is where my science degree hurts me. My immediate thought, without looking at the answers, was that bolstering the integrity of the study that provides the evidence for the conclusion, would strengthen the hypothesis. If the study has minimal flaws, then the correlation can be taken more seriously. 1- If the patients all had similar health stats, this ELIMINATES alternative hypotheses that these factors could be contributors to the abnormalities, it does not introduce it!! Just because it is not explicitly stated does not mean that the reader isn't questioning this. 2- with B and C- "The patients' throat surgery was not undertaken to treat abnormalities in their throat muscles," and, "people who have undergone throat surgery are no more likely to snore than people who have not undergone throat surgery."- Do these not strengthen the study? they both verify that the sample has no bias. When reading the stimuli, I immediately poked holes in the logic on the basis that those undergoing throat surgery are likely a biased sample, as people with throat issues are definitely more likely to snore. I just think this is a horrible question trained to trick people with a background in science
another LSAT program I've seen suggested to find the assumption made in the argument (the assumptions used to connect the premise to the conclusion) and test the answer choices against the assumption.
so for weaken questions you'd see if the answer choices destroy the assumption; for strengthen you see if the answer choices make that assumption more likely to be true.
tbh these weaken/strengthen vids on 7sage have been the first to have me really confused so maybe the method above might be more useful? or does this method even work? lmk
in the made up E answer you assume the treatment happened before the less frequent snoring but that is not indicated in the sentence. No timeline in the sentence.
So funny that the correct answer just says that it's not the other way around.
is this basically a neccessary assumption question answer choice
I need to step out and take a walk after this one
this might have just been the absolute WORST explanation and strategy I have ever seen.
This is a pretty rough example to introduce a newer concept. The explanation is rough as well.
I was doing so well on the weakening questions.... lol
My problem with this explanation is we try to block the alternative hypothesis of abnormalities C→ Snoring, But even if abnormalities C→ Snoring it might still be the case that snoring can damage the throat. It doesn't prevent the hypothesis from being true. So why would I think of this argument in advance somehow?
Am I tripping or did he flip the value symbol when explaining answer choice D?
Saying group S is no more likely should mean "equal to or LESS likely" than group ~S.
I understand his point, and it doesn't change the way that D is an irrelevant wrong answer choice but I just want to confirm that is the case, and also make sure that I'm not taking crazy pills :D
I don't understand the answer. From my understanding, having an abnormality means the throat has been damaged. In this context, does 'abnormality' in medical terms mean it is something you were born with?
I chose to believe the abnormality was what causes the snoring, immediately used my own assumptions against myself.
i was really confused between c) and e), as a psych grad i picked c) because duh. but the more i thought about it the more i found e) to be right.
c) being wrong because it doesn't address that the argument can be weakened through offering a differing hypothesis. even through listening generalizability, it opens up too much interpretation and assumptions
e) does do that address a weak point in the argument and counteracts it through giving evidence for the cause and effect relationship between snoring and throat abnormalities.
Is there a mistake in the video explanation of the comparative in answer choice D? Doesn't "no more likely" indicate that the surgery group is just as likely (equally likely) or LESS likely to snore than the non-surgery group? The video explanation says just as likely or MORE likely. Am I parsing the grammar incorrectly?