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.
How are we supposed to be approching strengthening questions. With weakining ik we focus on alternatives to the hypothesis given but with strengthening idk what im supposed to be doing because the lesson video was not very helpful
Also, is not the reasoning for the argument that the corporations are doing the influencing? The strengthening must support the reasoning not only the argument in my understanding.
This one really messed with me since the last question we went over, the correct answer was denying an alternative hypothesis. I got it wrong the first time, but right in the blind review, but don't make the same mistake that I made in trying to look for an answer that denies an alternative hypothesis. I saw someone comment this a few lessons back, but I always find myself getting the hard questions right, but overthinking on the easy ones lol.
I got C right and then chose A during blind review. I see why C is right, but couldn't A technically be right? Even though it's not in the timeline, doesn't it strengthen the argument even more because it's giving evidence from 2 decades ago to support the issues in the past 5 years.
3
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.
91 comments
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?
How are we supposed to be approching strengthening questions. With weakining ik we focus on alternatives to the hypothesis given but with strengthening idk what im supposed to be doing because the lesson video was not very helpful
What does low priority and high priority mean here?
Strengthening and weakening have me literally lost. I am trying to hard to understand their differences but they seem the same to me :/
LET'S GOOOOO! Finally got it right on the first try! C for the win BABY!
Oh wow I am so bad at weakening and strengthening. I am LOST
Also, is not the reasoning for the argument that the corporations are doing the influencing? The strengthening must support the reasoning not only the argument in my understanding.
#feedback
This one really messed with me since the last question we went over, the correct answer was denying an alternative hypothesis. I got it wrong the first time, but right in the blind review, but don't make the same mistake that I made in trying to look for an answer that denies an alternative hypothesis. I saw someone comment this a few lessons back, but I always find myself getting the hard questions right, but overthinking on the easy ones lol.
I got C right and then chose A during blind review. I see why C is right, but couldn't A technically be right? Even though it's not in the timeline, doesn't it strengthen the argument even more because it's giving evidence from 2 decades ago to support the issues in the past 5 years.