If you're struggling with these types of questions, I have a piece of advice that has worked well for me.
Step 1: Read the question stem. In this case we want to weaken the argument.
Step 2: Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion. This is the most important part. Before you even look at the answer choices (ACs), have something in mind to (typically) look for.
I say typically because I am not the most experienced LSAT taker, so don't just hunt for an answer you like, use that as the starting point to eliminate bad answers. POE is always superior to Hunt for accuracy, Hunting is just good for time management on easy questions.
In this question, we are not just looking for a mechanism that protected the heart. We are looking for an AC that will explain a mechanism that protected the heart AND was not extremely low in fat. That "and" is crucial.
We are not strengthening the heart, we are strengthening the authors hypothesis as to what protects the heart. Even if the author was wrong, we still want to strengthen their hypothesis.
Using this basis alone, you can instantly eliminate D and E because they provide alternative hypotheses. Remember alternative hypotheses weaken arguments?
C fails because it doesn't tell us that a diet without low fat protected their heart. It just said they like the food. Ok? I like deep fried food too, will it protect my heart?
A fails because for one if denies the sufficient, which is an instant no. It also doesn't tell us that a higher fat diet still protects the heart.
POE leaves us with B, which works because it tells us the fats are still there, and the heart was protected.
I now realize that I wrote all this shit just to explain a question 98% of people already answer correctly LMAO who am I deceiving
@KelechiChukwuemeka I got this right but I still found your explanation helpful! Plus, I usually like to "explain" the reasoning to others to enhance my own knowledge. Teaching is the best way to learn!
There's probably a better question to highlight the need for the causal logic than this question. This question feels no different than the previous questions in this module. Yet, its after what is suggested to be a slightly different variation.
I tried this question beforehand and got stuck between B or D but was strong for B because it explained the question of why fatty food protects the heart. While D was either a suggestion or an assumption.
I understand with all given answer choices why it would be B, however, I was under the impression that the argument we are tasked to strengthen states that diets (oil,fat?) have little impact or negligible effects on protecting the heart. Why, then, would the best answer go in depth about specific oils in the Med diet protecting the heart?
So from my understanding, the argument is stating that diets do not have to be low in fat in order to protect the heart. So for me at least, I am looking for an answer choice that strengthens the conclusion that a diet does not have to be low in fat to be healthy for the heart, which is supported by B, as it states that the oils in the fat contribute to protecting the heart.
I'm not necessarily recommending this as a strategy, but you can almost anticipate what the answer is going to say to strengthen the argument. For this question, my first thought before seeing the answers was that not all oils/fats are equal. B gets at that by addressing that the types of fats in M-diet are GOOD for protecting the heart.
That is exactly what I did. But I think we should be careful in not bringing in our assumptions or prior knowledge with other questions and only stick to taking the answers as true so we don't get confused with other Q stems
Wouldn't Option C "The patients who consumed the Mediterranean diet" be referring to all patients who were told to switch to Mediterranean? That's how I would assume based on habitual uses of language.
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.
31 comments
If you're struggling with these types of questions, I have a piece of advice that has worked well for me.
Step 1: Read the question stem. In this case we want to weaken the argument.
Step 2: Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion. This is the most important part. Before you even look at the answer choices (ACs), have something in mind to (typically) look for.
I say typically because I am not the most experienced LSAT taker, so don't just hunt for an answer you like, use that as the starting point to eliminate bad answers. POE is always superior to Hunt for accuracy, Hunting is just good for time management on easy questions.
In this question, we are not just looking for a mechanism that protected the heart. We are looking for an AC that will explain a mechanism that protected the heart AND was not extremely low in fat. That "and" is crucial.
We are not strengthening the heart, we are strengthening the authors hypothesis as to what protects the heart. Even if the author was wrong, we still want to strengthen their hypothesis.
Using this basis alone, you can instantly eliminate D and E because they provide alternative hypotheses. Remember alternative hypotheses weaken arguments?
C fails because it doesn't tell us that a diet without low fat protected their heart. It just said they like the food. Ok? I like deep fried food too, will it protect my heart?
A fails because for one if denies the sufficient, which is an instant no. It also doesn't tell us that a higher fat diet still protects the heart.
POE leaves us with B, which works because it tells us the fats are still there, and the heart was protected.
I now realize that I wrote all this shit just to explain a question 98% of people already answer correctly LMAO who am I deceiving
@KelechiChukwuemeka I got this right but I still found your explanation helpful! Plus, I usually like to "explain" the reasoning to others to enhance my own knowledge. Teaching is the best way to learn!
this as a q1 would take me outtttt
KINDA FATTY
@charlesforest I have the humour of a 5yr old, I swear hahaha
There's probably a better question to highlight the need for the causal logic than this question. This question feels no different than the previous questions in this module. Yet, its after what is suggested to be a slightly different variation.
Me a nutrition major seeing this.
ITS MY TIME TO SHINE
Got this right and got so excited only to check and it’s a 1 star difficulty type question… i need to stop getting excited
@Vegaofcain Small wins are still wins!
Stimulus is a bit much for a one star.
,
I also thought B was correct because it is the fat/oil PARTICULAR to Mediterranean food
#Feedback
Would you be able to add time targets in the answer section for 'Lesson' questions?
#feedback Definitely this, please. All it takes is copying and pasting the time in.
^
Yes please! I know I kinda need to make it about a minute but I am just staring at it for like three minutes
This reminds me so much of RRE questions! Everything is kind of connected.
"Goddamn it you had a chance" - me with every wrong answer I had full confidence in
lol
I tried this question beforehand and got stuck between B or D but was strong for B because it explained the question of why fatty food protects the heart. While D was either a suggestion or an assumption.
I understand with all given answer choices why it would be B, however, I was under the impression that the argument we are tasked to strengthen states that diets (oil,fat?) have little impact or negligible effects on protecting the heart. Why, then, would the best answer go in depth about specific oils in the Med diet protecting the heart?
So from my understanding, the argument is stating that diets do not have to be low in fat in order to protect the heart. So for me at least, I am looking for an answer choice that strengthens the conclusion that a diet does not have to be low in fat to be healthy for the heart, which is supported by B, as it states that the oils in the fat contribute to protecting the heart.
i had the same thought process.
I'm not necessarily recommending this as a strategy, but you can almost anticipate what the answer is going to say to strengthen the argument. For this question, my first thought before seeing the answers was that not all oils/fats are equal. B gets at that by addressing that the types of fats in M-diet are GOOD for protecting the heart.
That is exactly what I did. But I think we should be careful in not bringing in our assumptions or prior knowledge with other questions and only stick to taking the answers as true so we don't get confused with other Q stems
This did not click for my brain.
Which part?
All of it honestly.
Wouldn't Option C "The patients who consumed the Mediterranean diet" be referring to all patients who were told to switch to Mediterranean? That's how I would assume based on habitual uses of language.
Wow, what a lesson
Dayum you got 15 likes on this son