I think this is a great example of how the phenomenon is NOT the premise. It's the context. The stem here says "strengthen the reasoning", meaning the support relationship from premise: "since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects" to conclusion: "it is likely that the corporations actions influenced...". Answer choice C specifically strengthens that support relationship (only research projects that corporations discourage get their funding curtailed). Getting sidetracked by thinking the phenomenon as premise and how that premise supports the conclusion makes it much less clear, and primes you for distractors
This is an example of a question that blatantly restates the hypothesis again. I am interested to see what tricks the next questions have up their sleeves
This seems like a very weird way to go about strengthening an argument. I feel like it depends too heavily on the test taker thinking of the right alternative hypothesis to discredit so that they can identify the corresponding piece of evidence that contradicts it. Why not cut to the chase and ask yourself which answer choice makes the conclusion more likely to be more, similar to an MSS question?
Just like how we learn in the last lecture, an alternative hypothesis of this could be flipping the S and N, which will be:
Government curtailed -> Corporations discourage
(meaning that it's simply because the government wants to cut the budget for alt energy, corporate start discouraging it. Note that it's unlike the "government downsize generally", here the government just wants to target the alt energy, which could be possible.)
But when we diagram C: ("the only" introduces S)
Government curtailed -> Corporations discourage
Isn't this the same as the diagram for alt hypothesis? Wouldn't strengthening the alt hypothesis weaken the original stimulus? This is the reason why I didn't pick C.
Y'all this is one of those 'i am on a debate club debating the most random, cognitive dissonant side ever, but i hate Chad who is captain of the other argument side - so imma smoke him' questions.
I dont understand a word on his explanation ? can someone pls explain to me the word "strengthen" means here? wth am i doing? Am i taking the conclusion and looking at AC to strengthen the conclusion??
oh god, I accidentally applied what he said from the weaken section about choosing answer choices that directly attack he premise, which are seldom the correct answer.
When doing weakening questions, I always say to myself to look for the answer choice that if used as the conclusion instead, makes the argument a lot stronger.
Does anyone have a sort of tactic/question like this that they ask for strengthening questions? I am having a lot of trouble.
It is NOT a reasonable assumption to equate "research project" with "alternative energy initiative". The attempted explanation here that alternative energy is NEW energy, which would require research to somehow discover is just factually wrong.
Definition of alternative energy: energy generated in ways that do not deplete natural resources or harm the environment, especially by avoiding the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. - OXFORD GODDAMN DICTIONARY.
So... solar, wind, hydro. This is one frustratingly weak stretch of an assumption man.
does anyone have a cheat sheet on how to approach strengthening questions?
0
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.
104 comments
I think this is a great example of how the phenomenon is NOT the premise. It's the context. The stem here says "strengthen the reasoning", meaning the support relationship from premise: "since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects" to conclusion: "it is likely that the corporations actions influenced...". Answer choice C specifically strengthens that support relationship (only research projects that corporations discourage get their funding curtailed). Getting sidetracked by thinking the phenomenon as premise and how that premise supports the conclusion makes it much less clear, and primes you for distractors
fried my brain over a level 1 difficulty question. Nice!
I don't see the purpose of trying to figuring out an alternative hypothesis. Especially since we have such time constraints.
how in the world is this a fucking one-star difficulty
This is an example of a question that blatantly restates the hypothesis again. I am interested to see what tricks the next questions have up their sleeves
The word "Research" threw me off because we're talking about initiatives!! UGH- but I see it
#help
This seems like a very weird way to go about strengthening an argument. I feel like it depends too heavily on the test taker thinking of the right alternative hypothesis to discredit so that they can identify the corresponding piece of evidence that contradicts it. Why not cut to the chase and ask yourself which answer choice makes the conclusion more likely to be more, similar to an MSS question?
Is it fair to look at the conclusions of strengthening questions and focus on answers that have a direct impact on making the conclusion “more true”?
I.e the answer clearly states that a corporation who took action (discourage) was a direct impact on curtailing funding.
If I look at the other answers, most of the answers don’t mention corporations taking action.
Is that applicable to most strengthening questions? Or, is this an outlier?
I got it right and then wrong in blind review!! i gotta stop second guessing!!
Can someone please help explain why C?
If we diagram the stimulus, it's:
Corporate Discourage -> Government curtailed
Just like how we learn in the last lecture, an alternative hypothesis of this could be flipping the S and N, which will be:
Government curtailed -> Corporations discourage
(meaning that it's simply because the government wants to cut the budget for alt energy, corporate start discouraging it. Note that it's unlike the "government downsize generally", here the government just wants to target the alt energy, which could be possible.)
But when we diagram C: ("the only" introduces S)
Government curtailed -> Corporations discourage
Isn't this the same as the diagram for alt hypothesis? Wouldn't strengthening the alt hypothesis weaken the original stimulus? This is the reason why I didn't pick C.
I feel helpless. I wish these sections would have more fundamental explanations on strategy instead of just sample questions.
Y'all this is one of those 'i am on a debate club debating the most random, cognitive dissonant side ever, but i hate Chad who is captain of the other argument side - so imma smoke him' questions.
bruh I am actually the 1% that choose D. brutal lmao
I dont understand a word on his explanation ? can someone pls explain to me the word "strengthen" means here? wth am i doing? Am i taking the conclusion and looking at AC to strengthen the conclusion??
it is a level 1 and i failed miserably. thanks
oh god, I accidentally applied what he said from the weaken section about choosing answer choices that directly attack he premise, which are seldom the correct answer.
bruh i forgot we moved on to strengthen questions thats the only reason i got this one wrong
GOTTEN EVERY SINGLE QUESTION THIS SECTION WRONG IM GOING TO SLEEP
i am losing hope with how bad i am with both weakening and strengthening questions man
When doing weakening questions, I always say to myself to look for the answer choice that if used as the conclusion instead, makes the argument a lot stronger.
Does anyone have a sort of tactic/question like this that they ask for strengthening questions? I am having a lot of trouble.
With Strenghten questions, you are supporting the assumption being made.
Does it introduce new but relevant info?
Does it support the assumption or fill a logical gap?
Does it make the conclusion more likely to follow from the premises?
small victories matter y'all
It is NOT a reasonable assumption to equate "research project" with "alternative energy initiative". The attempted explanation here that alternative energy is NEW energy, which would require research to somehow discover is just factually wrong.
Definition of alternative energy: energy generated in ways that do not deplete natural resources or harm the environment, especially by avoiding the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. - OXFORD GODDAMN DICTIONARY.
So... solar, wind, hydro. This is one frustratingly weak stretch of an assumption man.
This explanation for specifically any ac but C) was so horrible and it made me sick to my stomach. I usually love the explanations tho.
does anyone have a cheat sheet on how to approach strengthening questions?