I see strengthening as a missing premise. What's missing that completes this argument/adds weight to its veracity. Some 'wrong' answers go against what the premises say. Keep an eye out for that, y'all! We are not fighting with the premises, we are helping complete an otherwise weak(er) argument.
Agreed. There are times when it causes more confusion (for me). I get so lost in what he is saying that I find it difficult to determine what is the ultimate point. All I want to know is why is the right answer right and the wrong answer wrong. The "what could be" scenarios muddy the explanations. Just my opinion.
Maybe we don't have to understand JY's thought process exactly as to why each answer is right or wrong in all his details. But it's helpful to have the capability to give monologues quite like he does, on the drop of a hat. Being able to do so shows you have very much sharpened your intuitions on these problems. So maybe it's helpful, if not to track his reasoning exactly, to track our instructors demeanor and approach, especially his aspect of having fully formed and systematic opinions and reasons behind accepting or rejecting each answer.
This one took me a minute. If you're struggling, this might help:
the stimulus says there is a correlation between snoring and throat damage then claims the snoring caused the damage/abnormalities in the conclusion. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused by the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so then snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities.
@JAndonian16 I think that answer choice E does not guarantee the truth of snoring causing damage/abnormalities, it just makes it more likely to be true (because you eliminated the possibility of reverse causality). My impression from the lesson was that the "bar" for the strength of the conclusion in the stimulus is not at the "must be true" level, so choosing E does not mean snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities, it just increases the likelihood of it being true.
@Amelia_D It kind of does guarantee it though. There's a correlation between A (snoring) and B (throat damage). Stimulus is arguing that A caused B. Answer E says that B didn't cause A. So If B didn't cause A, then A must have caused B. This is a strengthen question, not a mbt but I see what you're saying.
Okay, so I was so confused at first but after further reviewing, I'm going to share my thought process behind this in hopes it helps others confused.
Based on the argument, the author concludes by saying that snoring is the CAUSE for damage in throats. The premises talks about the correlation between snoring and abnormalities. So, like many of you (hopefully), I viewed that as saying that abnormalities could also be the reasoning behind the damage in throats because of the correlation between abnormalities and snoring. However, going back to the conclusion, we find that the correlation in this argument is essentially irrelevant because the author saying SNORING is the [only] CAUSE for damage.
Therefore, (E), strengthens our argument because what it does is eliminates our alternative explanation we could have had that the abnormalities are the cause of snoring. By removing the possibility that the abnormalities cause snoring, (E) strengthens the conclusion that snoring is the cause of the damage in throats.
I'm a bit confused as to why C weakens the argument rather than strengthens it. I fully understand why E is stronger, as it eliminates a competing hypothesis, but in the case of C, it says that 3 variables were in essence held constant and thus cannot be confounding.
If they were not held constant, then one could point to age being the reason, for example, that some people had more snoring and more abnormalities.
Given that those 3 factors are equal, they cannot be reasonable explanations as to why some people had more snoring and more abnormalities. If this WERE the case, every person should have increases in snoring and abnormalities, but only some people had this increase!
Yeah, I was really dissatisfied with the explanation for C. I think in addition to your thoughts in your response, it's also a case of choosing the best response and E directly denies an explicit alternative explanation where C heads off ideas that are a step back from whats in the stimulus, and is maybe less strength?
I agree that (C) limits the generalizability of the study to people who share the same demographics as the test subjects, but those demographics cannot be the cause of the throat abnormalities and snoring since some of the test subjects had more abnormalities and snoring, and some had less. So I wouldn't say that (C) strengthens the argument, but I don't think it introduces competing causes either. In order to determine if age, weight, and/or health status is the "X" (cause) that JY is referring to, they would need a control group that is NOT that age, weight, and/or specific health status for comparison.
A better way to mitigate the effects of confounding variables is a large sample size and random assignment. If done using a random sample (rather than one in which all subjects had the same age, health status, and weight), this would both assess the effect of the independent variable in isolation and produce generalizable results.
After some further thought, I believe the problem lies in the stimulus generalizing the findings.
The findings that snoring and abnormalities are correlated is only really known for the studied population (those who got the surgery). So when the stimulus attempts to generalize, you can only do this with research findings that have a representative population. Given that answer choice C shows the population is NOT representative, you cannot conclude that snoring causes abnormalities in general (only can do this in those with throat surgery).
IF the stimulus were making the case that snoring causes abnormalities in the studied population, I can see option C as eliminating confounding variables and strengthening the claim since it is specific enough about the given population.
That harder version of answer E scared the shit out of me. I could totally see myself when under timed circumstances writing that answer off as irrelevant on my first pass through.
All the more reason and a good reminder to make sure you understand exactly what each answer is saying.
@tlpalmer98138 I came to the discussion section looking for people commenting on the alternative AC-E. I haven't see many comments on this yet. I don't have great intuition when reading something that says "did not snore less frequently." That does not easily click in my brain. I was hoping others who more easily understand this wording might opine and suggest a straight-forward strategy to translate that language in a more simplified version.
"did not snore less/more frequently" =snored as much as before which means snoring did not increase or decrease with the abnormalities being fixed.
Hence, abnormalities are independent of snoring which also means that abnormalities are not causing snoring. Which, in turn, strengthens the hypothesis that snoring is causing abnormalities. Hope this helps!
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.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I think you're right on point with this. If you look back to the fundamental definitions of premises and conclusions, you'll see that a premise is something that provides support to a conclusion.
Premises CAN support other premises, but that's not how it's really defined. So, as you pointed out, the goal of this type of question is to look for something that bolsters support for the conclusion - i.e., ignore the other premises because they don't really matter.
However, I could see a level 5 difficulty question being sneaky where the best answer is one that strengthens support for a premise that supports the conclusion.
Either way, thanks for this - the video was garbage in helping me.
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
#feedback C does not "introduce an alternative hypothesis, that it's some third factor", the alternative hypothesis/potential third factor was always there.
C removes 3 alternative hypotheses/third factors (age, weight, and state of health) which strengthens the argument. But the issue is it does not eliminate the possibility of another third factor, so C could still be the cause of both A and B. In absence of E, C would be correct.
E completely removes the possibility that B causes A, so it strengthens it more than partially eliminating C as a factor.
I do not know why but this video and the last one does not seem to have helped me, I hope I am wrong and with practice I'll get these answers hopefully always correct., for now I'm still a little scared of the LSAT due to timing, but I am feeling better towards it.,
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.
128 comments
I see strengthening as a missing premise. What's missing that completes this argument/adds weight to its veracity. Some 'wrong' answers go against what the premises say. Keep an eye out for that, y'all! We are not fighting with the premises, we are helping complete an otherwise weak(er) argument.
JY overexplains sometimes ughh
Agreed. There are times when it causes more confusion (for me). I get so lost in what he is saying that I find it difficult to determine what is the ultimate point. All I want to know is why is the right answer right and the wrong answer wrong. The "what could be" scenarios muddy the explanations. Just my opinion.
But sometimes it can reveal major foresight into why an answer is right or wrong, I just have to keep paying attention.
Sometimes I listen on 1.4x or 1.7x or skim through the writing or video to get to what I want to hear.
Maybe we don't have to understand JY's thought process exactly as to why each answer is right or wrong in all his details. But it's helpful to have the capability to give monologues quite like he does, on the drop of a hat. Being able to do so shows you have very much sharpened your intuitions on these problems. So maybe it's helpful, if not to track his reasoning exactly, to track our instructors demeanor and approach, especially his aspect of having fully formed and systematic opinions and reasons behind accepting or rejecting each answer.
I was doing so well on the weakening questions.... lol
ahaha I know right.
this entire section genuinely took away all my hope
This is a pretty rough example to introduce a newer concept. The explanation is rough as well.
I need to step out and take a walk after this one
This one took me a minute. If you're struggling, this might help:
the stimulus says there is a correlation between snoring and throat damage then claims the snoring caused the damage/abnormalities in the conclusion. Alternatively, you could argue that maybe the damage was caused by the snoring. Then E says damage/abnormalities didn't cause the snoring; so then snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities.
@JAndonian16 thank you! This helped so much
@JAndonian16 I think that answer choice E does not guarantee the truth of snoring causing damage/abnormalities, it just makes it more likely to be true (because you eliminated the possibility of reverse causality). My impression from the lesson was that the "bar" for the strength of the conclusion in the stimulus is not at the "must be true" level, so choosing E does not mean snoring must have caused the damage/abnormalities, it just increases the likelihood of it being true.
@JAndonian16 omg you are genius
@Amelia_D It kind of does guarantee it though. There's a correlation between A (snoring) and B (throat damage). Stimulus is arguing that A caused B. Answer E says that B didn't cause A. So If B didn't cause A, then A must have caused B. This is a strengthen question, not a mbt but I see what you're saying.
The headache that has built behind my eyes after this lesson…
This made 0 sense to me. E did not seem like the right answer to me at all.
ugh ok.
Okay, so I was so confused at first but after further reviewing, I'm going to share my thought process behind this in hopes it helps others confused.
Based on the argument, the author concludes by saying that snoring is the CAUSE for damage in throats. The premises talks about the correlation between snoring and abnormalities. So, like many of you (hopefully), I viewed that as saying that abnormalities could also be the reasoning behind the damage in throats because of the correlation between abnormalities and snoring. However, going back to the conclusion, we find that the correlation in this argument is essentially irrelevant because the author saying SNORING is the [only] CAUSE for damage.
Therefore, (E), strengthens our argument because what it does is eliminates our alternative explanation we could have had that the abnormalities are the cause of snoring. By removing the possibility that the abnormalities cause snoring, (E) strengthens the conclusion that snoring is the cause of the damage in throats.
Hope this explanation helps!
It took me so long to understand! thank you so much!
this might have just been the absolute WORST explanation and strategy I have ever seen.
This one made no sense tbh
certified yapper on this one sheesh
I'm a bit confused as to why C weakens the argument rather than strengthens it. I fully understand why E is stronger, as it eliminates a competing hypothesis, but in the case of C, it says that 3 variables were in essence held constant and thus cannot be confounding.
If they were not held constant, then one could point to age being the reason, for example, that some people had more snoring and more abnormalities.
Given that those 3 factors are equal, they cannot be reasonable explanations as to why some people had more snoring and more abnormalities. If this WERE the case, every person should have increases in snoring and abnormalities, but only some people had this increase!
Yeah, I was really dissatisfied with the explanation for C. I think in addition to your thoughts in your response, it's also a case of choosing the best response and E directly denies an explicit alternative explanation where C heads off ideas that are a step back from whats in the stimulus, and is maybe less strength?
E:
Abnormalities→snoringC:
Age→Abnormalities→and/or→snoringWeight→Abnormalities→and/or→snoringI agree that (C) limits the generalizability of the study to people who share the same demographics as the test subjects, but those demographics cannot be the cause of the throat abnormalities and snoring since some of the test subjects had more abnormalities and snoring, and some had less. So I wouldn't say that (C) strengthens the argument, but I don't think it introduces competing causes either. In order to determine if age, weight, and/or health status is the "X" (cause) that JY is referring to, they would need a control group that is NOT that age, weight, and/or specific health status for comparison.
A better way to mitigate the effects of confounding variables is a large sample size and random assignment. If done using a random sample (rather than one in which all subjects had the same age, health status, and weight), this would both assess the effect of the independent variable in isolation and produce generalizable results.
#feedback
After some further thought, I believe the problem lies in the stimulus generalizing the findings.
The findings that snoring and abnormalities are correlated is only really known for the studied population (those who got the surgery). So when the stimulus attempts to generalize, you can only do this with research findings that have a representative population. Given that answer choice C shows the population is NOT representative, you cannot conclude that snoring causes abnormalities in general (only can do this in those with throat surgery).
IF the stimulus were making the case that snoring causes abnormalities in the studied population, I can see option C as eliminating confounding variables and strengthening the claim since it is specific enough about the given population.
That harder version of answer E scared the shit out of me. I could totally see myself when under timed circumstances writing that answer off as irrelevant on my first pass through.
All the more reason and a good reminder to make sure you understand exactly what each answer is saying.
@tlpalmer98138 I came to the discussion section looking for people commenting on the alternative AC-E. I haven't see many comments on this yet. I don't have great intuition when reading something that says "did not snore less frequently." That does not easily click in my brain. I was hoping others who more easily understand this wording might opine and suggest a straight-forward strategy to translate that language in a more simplified version.
@StanHolt Hii, I think you can translate it as:
"did not snore less/more frequently" =snored as much as before which means snoring did not increase or decrease with the abnormalities being fixed.
Hence, abnormalities are independent of snoring which also means that abnormalities are not causing snoring. Which, in turn, strengthens the hypothesis that snoring is causing abnormalities. Hope this helps!
what in the actual f is this question.... I was so confident in C and was like there's no way it's E
So funny that the correct answer just says that it's not the other way around.
Getting rid of competing alternate hypothesis -> CAN STRENGTHEN ARGUMENT!
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.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory Thank you for this because I was extremely confused how JY got the answer E.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I think you're right on point with this. If you look back to the fundamental definitions of premises and conclusions, you'll see that a premise is something that provides support to a conclusion.
Premises CAN support other premises, but that's not how it's really defined. So, as you pointed out, the goal of this type of question is to look for something that bolsters support for the conclusion - i.e., ignore the other premises because they don't really matter.
However, I could see a level 5 difficulty question being sneaky where the best answer is one that strengthens support for a premise that supports the conclusion.
Either way, thanks for this - the video was garbage in helping me.
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
#feedback C does not "introduce an alternative hypothesis, that it's some third factor", the alternative hypothesis/potential third factor was always there.
C removes 3 alternative hypotheses/third factors (age, weight, and state of health) which strengthens the argument. But the issue is it does not eliminate the possibility of another third factor, so C could still be the cause of both A and B. In absence of E, C would be correct.
E completely removes the possibility that B causes A, so it strengthens it more than partially eliminating C as a factor.
I do not know why but this video and the last one does not seem to have helped me, I hope I am wrong and with practice I'll get these answers hopefully always correct., for now I'm still a little scared of the LSAT due to timing, but I am feeling better towards it.,
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.
I confused the causal relationship so didn’t even think E could be correct and chose C instead. This was a hard one!