On these types of questions I'm going to skim the premise, try "ignoring it" and focus on what strengthens the conclusion without needing the premise. Worked for this one at least.
I think coming up with hypothetical alternative hypotheses to then compare the answers to encourages the wrong kind of thinking. The whole curriculum keeps making the point not to assume and keep anchoring back to the stimulus. Process of elimination is truly the best approach for these kinds of questions in my opinion purely based off of like what answer choice seems the most reasonable — least amount of assumptions, directly relevant to what is discussed/concluded in the stimulus and the connection between the premise(s) and conclusion. To come up with a hypothetical alternative hypothesis and use that to check how to strengthen the argument seems counterintuitive and honestly not worth the time it takes… just my two cents
I made a mistake and picked A, ignoring the scope of time which it put out. I need to make sure and be critical of every word in the answer cause even some of it could make the answer choice wrong. Got it right on the blind review but I'll be careful next time
C is the right answer because we need to strengthen the conclusion that large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative energy projects and that their actions influenced the government's decision to fund them less -
This answer choice strongly supports that this is the case by stating that the ONLY research projects whose funding has been severely curtailed are the ones that large corporations have made a point to discourage. Right on first try and 1 second over.
I feel like reading the explanations for why the other answer choices are wrong are so convoluted and confusing compared to how people see them, I just think that its confusing me more
I got it wrong the first time, but I think doing a blind review and being more critical of grammar and breaking down the sentences/ subgroups helped me achieve a right answer a second time
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.
@LSAT175 The hypothesis in the stimulus is Corps -cause-> curtailed gov funding
Answer choice C:
The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
Explanation: the large corporations had made it a point to discourage, which led to/caused curtailed funding. The result was curtailed government funding caused by large corporations.
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.
@saulgoodman13 yeah me too, my problem is D more accurately blocks an alternative explanation, which is the ONLY strategy they have given us for this to this point. All C does is restate the hypothesis. I'm really not sure how that strengthens anything
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??
@legallyhaya I would maybe think about the spectrum and use POE. Each answer consider is this +, -, or neutral in its support? Or, take each AC and ask yourself “if this is true, does it make me more likely to believe the Q to be true”? Or, one more - do I need to assume anything in order to make this AC correct?
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
116 comments
Im always going overtime by a minute/two
i got this right with a few seconds to spare, but it felt MUCH more strenuous than a level 1
On these types of questions I'm going to skim the premise, try "ignoring it" and focus on what strengthens the conclusion without needing the premise. Worked for this one at least.
I think coming up with hypothetical alternative hypotheses to then compare the answers to encourages the wrong kind of thinking. The whole curriculum keeps making the point not to assume and keep anchoring back to the stimulus. Process of elimination is truly the best approach for these kinds of questions in my opinion purely based off of like what answer choice seems the most reasonable — least amount of assumptions, directly relevant to what is discussed/concluded in the stimulus and the connection between the premise(s) and conclusion. To come up with a hypothetical alternative hypothesis and use that to check how to strengthen the argument seems counterintuitive and honestly not worth the time it takes… just my two cents
I made a mistake and picked A, ignoring the scope of time which it put out. I need to make sure and be critical of every word in the answer cause even some of it could make the answer choice wrong. Got it right on the blind review but I'll be careful next time
C is the right answer because we need to strengthen the conclusion that large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative energy projects and that their actions influenced the government's decision to fund them less -
This answer choice strongly supports that this is the case by stating that the ONLY research projects whose funding has been severely curtailed are the ones that large corporations have made a point to discourage. Right on first try and 1 second over.
I feel like reading the explanations for why the other answer choices are wrong are so convoluted and confusing compared to how people see them, I just think that its confusing me more
My brain simply did not absorb what the stimulus was laying out on this one lol
I got it wrong the first time, but I think doing a blind review and being more critical of grammar and breaking down the sentences/ subgroups helped me achieve a right answer a second time
How was that a level one difficulty question? I was a min over!
@MarieChavis Even though it's a level one strengthen question it took me 6 minutes to get it right the first time, imo felt way more than a level one
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!
@mitch.s Had to google wtf curtailed meant LMAO
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
@MelanieGonzalez Same! I was going between C and E but choose E because of that reason.
#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?
@coopermooney02 thats what i did
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.
@LSAT175 The hypothesis in the stimulus is Corps -cause-> curtailed gov funding
Answer choice C:
The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
Explanation: the large corporations had made it a point to discourage, which led to/caused curtailed funding. The result was curtailed government funding caused by large corporations.
I feel helpless. I wish these sections would have more fundamental explanations on strategy instead of just sample questions.
@meepmeep Agreed.
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
@saulgoodman13 yeah me too, my problem is D more accurately blocks an alternative explanation, which is the ONLY strategy they have given us for this to this point. All C does is restate the hypothesis. I'm really not sure how that strengthens anything
@epayne17 my exact reasoning for picking D
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??
@legallyhaya I would maybe think about the spectrum and use POE. Each answer consider is this +, -, or neutral in its support? Or, take each AC and ask yourself “if this is true, does it make me more likely to believe the Q to be true”? Or, one more - do I need to assume anything in order to make this AC correct?
it is a level 1 and i failed miserably. thanks