is it reasonable to assume that every time a stim describing an experiment does not state, "the participants were assigned into two groups" that the participants self-selected?
i dont know why i have such a hard time reading these questions. i feel like i keep making mistakes because i forget halfway through that i am supposed to be weakening the argument and i look for an answer that strengthens it. so frustrating
Isn't D really really weak? For it to actually do anything to the argument, we have to assume that the proportion of jogging injuries in the population is not insignificant — because if it WERE insignificant, then the number of injury-prone joggers who self-selected into Group 1 would also be insignificant. But this is a pretty big assumption.
D would be much stronger if the relationship was reversed — "the more likely a jogger is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging, the more prone they are to jogging injuries." Were this to be the case, there would be much more reason to suppose that Group 1 is composed of, to a significant degree, injury-prone joggers.
I guess D is still the best answer out of a crop of bad answer choices. But to me it seems only just barely. Am I overthinking this?
Flaw here: I thought it was "so stretching reduces only the severity of your injuries and not the likelihood of injury"
Instead the flaw was "Ppl who stretch are more injury prone. stretching does reduce the likelihood of injury. it does it to the point where ppl who stretch have reduced their injury likelihood to the point where they now have reached the same likelihood of injury as non-stretchers."
The latter is probably easier to do than the former; rather than refuse the idea that stretching reduces injury, see how it still potentially could be true. Another flaw I want to be more aware of is the idea of "change in vs. rate".
The stimulus says that they have equal amounts of injuries, therefore stretching must not help mitigate injury. But the more a jogger is prone to injury the more likely they are to stretch. So, if you're prone to injury you stretch, which results in getting injured the same amount in comparison to someone who is not prone and not stretching. You've just proven the effectiveness of stretching.
Wowwwww, I came back to this explanation 3 months after, to give it a second chance, and NOW I GET IT. Sometimes, letting a question sit for a while helps!!!
This is what clicked for me, in case it's helpful to anyone:
What's important of answer choice D is the "more prone to injuries" part. It may be helpful to re-write this answer choice in dif ways, but meeting the same function, so let's do it:
Original answer choice: "The more prone a jogger is to jogging injuries, the more likely he or she is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging."
Easier, more intuitive versions of it:
"the first group is more prone to injuries." [that would do it, right?]
"the second group is amateur and therefore their training is less intense or less competitive"
"the first group are all 65 years old or older."
"the second group trains in a safer environment", etc.
the important thing is that individuals from the first group all suffer more injuries to begin with.
How does answer (D) serve to weaken the argument? The way I read the question and the explanation seems like it would strengthen the medical researcher's hypothesis?
anyone else keep getting the question wrong the first time and then then right during the blind review :( my anxiety gets so high looking and thinking of the time ticker going down i feel like i cant comprehend fast enough
I really wish he would talk less and be more efficient. He adds so many unnecessary comments that really bother me. I just want short, adequate and pure sentences. 18 minutes to explain this, is a waste of time. And this is for almost 95% of his videos. I don't have that extra time to hear his jokes or personal comments. And I can't get over how many times he repeats himself. He might think that repeating will help us remember the things better, but no. It's a video! For people who wants repetition, the can replay anytime they want.
I fell for answer choice E, and while I understand the content issues with that answer ("forms of exercise" instead of jogging, "severity" instead of # of injuries), I was confused by the decision to eliminate E due to the answer choice only going against the stimulus. In the first theory and approach lesson, wasn't one of the strategies to identify correct answers for Weaken questions to explain phenomena with an alternative hypothesis? Would this strategy only be effective if a stimulus was presenting a causation hypothesis, rather than refuting it?
i feel like a big stupid idiot. that's all, thank you.
14
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.
104 comments
i hate this test with a passion
I had the biggest "OHHHHHH'" moment at time 3:18. Like how did I miss that.
is it reasonable to assume that every time a stim describing an experiment does not state, "the participants were assigned into two groups" that the participants self-selected?
i dont know why i have such a hard time reading these questions. i feel like i keep making mistakes because i forget halfway through that i am supposed to be weakening the argument and i look for an answer that strengthens it. so frustrating
Could someone please share their process for answering questions like this?
Isn't D really really weak? For it to actually do anything to the argument, we have to assume that the proportion of jogging injuries in the population is not insignificant — because if it WERE insignificant, then the number of injury-prone joggers who self-selected into Group 1 would also be insignificant. But this is a pretty big assumption.
D would be much stronger if the relationship was reversed — "the more likely a jogger is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging, the more prone they are to jogging injuries." Were this to be the case, there would be much more reason to suppose that Group 1 is composed of, to a significant degree, injury-prone joggers.
I guess D is still the best answer out of a crop of bad answer choices. But to me it seems only just barely. Am I overthinking this?
im so confused bro I didn't even consider that answer as being remotely valid
Flaw here: I thought it was "so stretching reduces only the severity of your injuries and not the likelihood of injury"
Instead the flaw was "Ppl who stretch are more injury prone. stretching does reduce the likelihood of injury. it does it to the point where ppl who stretch have reduced their injury likelihood to the point where they now have reached the same likelihood of injury as non-stretchers."
The latter is probably easier to do than the former; rather than refuse the idea that stretching reduces injury, see how it still potentially could be true. Another flaw I want to be more aware of is the idea of "change in vs. rate".
I had the right answer, and I talked myself out of it. sigh
took me over 1 hour to comprehend this one and like I still don't really.
The stimulus says that they have equal amounts of injuries, therefore stretching must not help mitigate injury. But the more a jogger is prone to injury the more likely they are to stretch. So, if you're prone to injury you stretch, which results in getting injured the same amount in comparison to someone who is not prone and not stretching. You've just proven the effectiveness of stretching.
Wowwwww, I came back to this explanation 3 months after, to give it a second chance, and NOW I GET IT. Sometimes, letting a question sit for a while helps!!!
This is what clicked for me, in case it's helpful to anyone:
What's important of answer choice D is the "more prone to injuries" part. It may be helpful to re-write this answer choice in dif ways, but meeting the same function, so let's do it:
Original answer choice: "The more prone a jogger is to jogging injuries, the more likely he or she is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging."
Easier, more intuitive versions of it:
"the first group is more prone to injuries." [that would do it, right?]
"the second group is amateur and therefore their training is less intense or less competitive"
"the first group are all 65 years old or older."
"the second group trains in a safer environment", etc.
the important thing is that individuals from the first group all suffer more injuries to begin with.
Finally a level 5 right!
How does answer (D) serve to weaken the argument? The way I read the question and the explanation seems like it would strengthen the medical researcher's hypothesis?
anyone else keep getting the question wrong the first time and then then right during the blind review :( my anxiety gets so high looking and thinking of the time ticker going down i feel like i cant comprehend fast enough
Is it common to do well with strengthen questions but struggle with weaken questions?? What misunderstanding could be the root of this issue?
Why do I love answer choice C so much?
Am I allowed to curse on here?... This shit makes no fucking sense <3
Should I still watch this entire 18 minute video if I got it right my first try and was way below target? Seems like a waste of time. #help
I really wish he would talk less and be more efficient. He adds so many unnecessary comments that really bother me. I just want short, adequate and pure sentences. 18 minutes to explain this, is a waste of time. And this is for almost 95% of his videos. I don't have that extra time to hear his jokes or personal comments. And I can't get over how many times he repeats himself. He might think that repeating will help us remember the things better, but no. It's a video! For people who wants repetition, the can replay anytime they want.
#HELP - doesn't this answer attack the premise "Goku" rather than the support?
I denied Goku as the premise. I was not supposed to deny a premise by touching Goku. Yet, I did. I fell for the trap. Darn.
I fell for answer choice E, and while I understand the content issues with that answer ("forms of exercise" instead of jogging, "severity" instead of # of injuries), I was confused by the decision to eliminate E due to the answer choice only going against the stimulus. In the first theory and approach lesson, wasn't one of the strategies to identify correct answers for Weaken questions to explain phenomena with an alternative hypothesis? Would this strategy only be effective if a stimulus was presenting a causation hypothesis, rather than refuting it?
Idk if I'm happy that I can get every question to 50/50 or if I should be worried that I always miss the 50/50
i feel like a big stupid idiot. that's all, thank you.