I have only gotten 1 question done in the goal time, the entire time i've been studying using 7Sage.. I feel like the clock will be my biggest enemy :( Any suggestions?
@mrunordinary Keep practicing honestly, some questions you'll fly through no issues, others are meant to slow you down, save those for when you're with the easy ones.
Here I was focusing solely on the conclusion and trying to see which AC weakened the assertion that sunscreen is unlikely to reduce skin cancer. From what I thought I've found in the past, the right AC typically includes generally the same kind of language from the conclusion, but I guess I was mistaken and need to pay more attention to that referential phrasing of "this" in the conclusion.
@LSAT1011 The argument relies on data over the past 25 years for its hypothesis. Answer D does not do anything to ruin the link between cancer increasing in the last 25 despite more sunscreen usage. In contrast, answer B says that skin cancer generally develops among the very old due to sunburns experienced when they were very young. This means that the increase in skin cancer is from the very old developing it. Combine that with the fact that it says it is from sunburns from when they were young, it means it is outside the past 25 years ruining the foundation of the argument.
Idk if this is the right way to go about it but using this analogy helped it click for me:
I am trying to argue with someone who is saying that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer. I want to prove this person wrong and help them think of another reason as to why their argument doesn't make sense.
We are looking at 2000-2025 as an era where sunscreen use was on the rise but also skin cancer rates.
Me, being someone who was born in the 80s (example) spent a lot of time outside as a kid and HATED when my mom would tell me to put on sunscreen, so I never did. I was okay with being a lobster for days.
We are now in 2026 and I have skin cancer. This person I am arguing with is confused as to how I could have gotten skin cancer. He stills thinks that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer.
I tell him: "Well my doc asked if I spent a lot of time outside as a kid, I said yes and they asked if I used sun screen and I would say no. I hated using it. Doc tells me if I had used it, perhaps I wouldn't have skin cancer OR the cancer would be less severe. You're SOL, sorry"
Doc's prognosis weaken's the person's stance that I'm arguing with. Doc is saying that my actions from DECADES ago have resulted in consequences that I have to live with today. FAFO
B) didn't fit to me because the stimulus says "skin cancer...has continued to GROW." If B) were true, wouldn't it be more likely that cases of skin cancer would stay the SAME for the past 25 years, not GROW? I understand the reasoning behind B) and it is the strongest answer, but in my view the stimulus should not say cases increased, rather that they stayed constant despite increased sunscreen usage.
@AbigailFourspring I could be wrong in what youre trying to ask but the cases keep growing because if lets say 30 years ago I played outside everyday without sunscreen and then when it got popular 5 years later I started wearing it, I already caught skin cancer when I wasn't wearing sunscreen even if I started applying it I already have it. Maybe it marinated for 20+ years and when I'm older I just now got it. I still wore sunscreen but since I didn't wear it when I was young, applying it when I get older doesn't cancel out the effects of when I didn't use to wear it. obviously you have to multiply that by someone who was born the day after me, week after me, month after me, year after me, even a decade after me. Then you can reasonably say at least who knows maybe 1000 people are born a day and if every single one did the same thing as me the cases keep growing. Hope that helped!
Conclusion: Sunscreen is UNLIKELY to reduce risk of skin cancer
Why (support): over 25 years, skin cancer incidences have increased despite people using sunscreen.
Assumption (or how to analyze this): sunscreen COULD, in fact, help reduce skin cancer; people may get skin cancer for reasons beyond just using (or not) sunscreen [i.e. people may use sunscreen and still get cancer for other reasons]
Answer choice B (paraphrased): "old people develop skin cancer because of sunburns they got when they were young" --> Exactly: people develop skin cancer because of things like Age and Old sunburns, so whether they use sunscreen is irrelevant (they are still more susceptible; the fact that one in this category could use sunscreen and (God forbid) still get cancer isn't due to the sunscreen being ineffective, it's because they had a pre-existing condition..
I knew A and C were wrong. I was pretty sure D was wrong. B felt wrong at first blush because I totally forgot about the 25 years mentioned at the beginning of the stimulus. E seemed like the best option, followed by D, although D seemed off. I chose E on my initial take and D in my blind review. I was totally stumped until I got to the explanation and it mentioned the 25 years, and then it made total sense to me. I guess I probably should have re-read the stimulus in my blind review haha, but I felt very confident in my understanding of the conclusion / question stem going into the blind review, so I didn't. Sigh.
@pamelajkok exact same thing happened to me. i'm taking it as a gentle reminder to make sure i'm reading to thoroughly understand the stim and not just to rush to the answers.
I don't even know why this question stumped me so bad but I literally spent an hour here maybe more. So i applaud myself for understanding the correct answer but I'm so f***ing annoyed at myself. I would've skipped this damn question in a real exam
@CaseyLiu or we could give feedback so that the ones that understand can mention they did well on something so that others can ask if they need help. we in the same boat. But I get it — it’s frustrating
I was between B & E bc i thought if only those who believed they were susceptible to skin cancer used sunscreen then there was a high population of ppl who probably needed to wear sunscreen but didn't.. hence the increased amount of ppl w skin cancer. However, i didn't have to jump through as many hoops for B.
Dang it took me 5 minutes to be comfortable with B. I knew it was right but when placed against E it was a challenge. The only reason I didn't pick E was because of the word believe.
E is wrong because just because someone believes themselves to be X doesn't mean that belief is valid.
@MPFerrari The question says that despite the use of sunscreen growing over 25 years, the incidence of skin cancer has also grown. (B) says that the effects (cancer) from not using sunscreen (a sunburn) are only felt in very old people, decades later. For the argument to be valid, we would need to see if young people from the last 25 years develop cancer at the same rates as previous generations.
@MPFerrari I thought this too, at first, because I totally forgot about the mention of 25 years at the beginning of the stimulus. Factoring in the timeframe mentioned, it makes total sense.
This question got me because it felt like B didn't address the GROWTH of skin cancer incidents, only explaining why there would still be skin cancer despite sunscreen. I guess that's why the question says most weakens and not destroys.
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.
139 comments
I got the question wrong and in blind review. I was doing so good but the weaken questions are hard for me
almost chose E but decided to go with my original B answer!
I have only gotten 1 question done in the goal time, the entire time i've been studying using 7Sage.. I feel like the clock will be my biggest enemy :( Any suggestions?
@mrunordinary Keep practicing honestly, some questions you'll fly through no issues, others are meant to slow you down, save those for when you're with the easy ones.
@mrunordinary You might be able to get extra time from a doctor.
Crying because how am I supposed to understand and find that in 1 min and 25 secs? #help
First question I feel I really really dont get lowkey
I need to remember that just because the answer doesnt make sense doesnt mean it weakens the argument ugh
Got it on BR - I think I need to drill weaken the argument questions
YAYAY! Got it right:)
Here I was focusing solely on the conclusion and trying to see which AC weakened the assertion that sunscreen is unlikely to reduce skin cancer. From what I thought I've found in the past, the right AC typically includes generally the same kind of language from the conclusion, but I guess I was mistaken and need to pay more attention to that referential phrasing of "this" in the conclusion.
Anyone have a better explanation for why D is not correct?
@LSAT1011 The argument relies on data over the past 25 years for its hypothesis. Answer D does not do anything to ruin the link between cancer increasing in the last 25 despite more sunscreen usage. In contrast, answer B says that skin cancer generally develops among the very old due to sunburns experienced when they were very young. This means that the increase in skin cancer is from the very old developing it. Combine that with the fact that it says it is from sunburns from when they were young, it means it is outside the past 25 years ruining the foundation of the argument.
20 is not very young... :(
@MichelleSap DOWNvoted
argument is ignoring another factor that could cause skin cancer and jumping to conclusion that sunscreen must be evil
Idk if this is the right way to go about it but using this analogy helped it click for me:
I am trying to argue with someone who is saying that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer. I want to prove this person wrong and help them think of another reason as to why their argument doesn't make sense.
We are looking at 2000-2025 as an era where sunscreen use was on the rise but also skin cancer rates.
Me, being someone who was born in the 80s (example) spent a lot of time outside as a kid and HATED when my mom would tell me to put on sunscreen, so I never did. I was okay with being a lobster for days.
We are now in 2026 and I have skin cancer. This person I am arguing with is confused as to how I could have gotten skin cancer. He stills thinks that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer.
I tell him: "Well my doc asked if I spent a lot of time outside as a kid, I said yes and they asked if I used sun screen and I would say no. I hated using it. Doc tells me if I had used it, perhaps I wouldn't have skin cancer OR the cancer would be less severe. You're SOL, sorry"
Doc's prognosis weaken's the person's stance that I'm arguing with. Doc is saying that my actions from DECADES ago have resulted in consequences that I have to live with today. FAFO
B) didn't fit to me because the stimulus says "skin cancer...has continued to GROW." If B) were true, wouldn't it be more likely that cases of skin cancer would stay the SAME for the past 25 years, not GROW? I understand the reasoning behind B) and it is the strongest answer, but in my view the stimulus should not say cases increased, rather that they stayed constant despite increased sunscreen usage.
@AbigailFourspring I could be wrong in what youre trying to ask but the cases keep growing because if lets say 30 years ago I played outside everyday without sunscreen and then when it got popular 5 years later I started wearing it, I already caught skin cancer when I wasn't wearing sunscreen even if I started applying it I already have it. Maybe it marinated for 20+ years and when I'm older I just now got it. I still wore sunscreen but since I didn't wear it when I was young, applying it when I get older doesn't cancel out the effects of when I didn't use to wear it. obviously you have to multiply that by someone who was born the day after me, week after me, month after me, year after me, even a decade after me. Then you can reasonably say at least who knows maybe 1000 people are born a day and if every single one did the same thing as me the cases keep growing. Hope that helped!
I finally got a Weaking question right! Finally!!! yay!!!!
man i was getting all the questions right but this one ruined my streak smh
@Ssss Facts
Think of it this way:
Conclusion: Sunscreen is UNLIKELY to reduce risk of skin cancer
Why (support): over 25 years, skin cancer incidences have increased despite people using sunscreen.
Assumption (or how to analyze this): sunscreen COULD, in fact, help reduce skin cancer; people may get skin cancer for reasons beyond just using (or not) sunscreen [i.e. people may use sunscreen and still get cancer for other reasons]
Answer choice B (paraphrased): "old people develop skin cancer because of sunburns they got when they were young" --> Exactly: people develop skin cancer because of things like Age and Old sunburns, so whether they use sunscreen is irrelevant (they are still more susceptible; the fact that one in this category could use sunscreen and (God forbid) still get cancer isn't due to the sunscreen being ineffective, it's because they had a pre-existing condition..
I knew A and C were wrong. I was pretty sure D was wrong. B felt wrong at first blush because I totally forgot about the 25 years mentioned at the beginning of the stimulus. E seemed like the best option, followed by D, although D seemed off. I chose E on my initial take and D in my blind review. I was totally stumped until I got to the explanation and it mentioned the 25 years, and then it made total sense to me. I guess I probably should have re-read the stimulus in my blind review haha, but I felt very confident in my understanding of the conclusion / question stem going into the blind review, so I didn't. Sigh.
@pamelajkok exact same thing happened to me. i'm taking it as a gentle reminder to make sure i'm reading to thoroughly understand the stim and not just to rush to the answers.
I don't even know why this question stumped me so bad but I literally spent an hour here maybe more. So i applaud myself for understanding the correct answer but I'm so f***ing annoyed at myself. I would've skipped this damn question in a real exam
The easiest one yet
@M1ckeymina keep to yourself lol
@CaseyLiu or we could give feedback so that the ones that understand can mention they did well on something so that others can ask if they need help. we in the same boat. But I get it — it’s frustrating
I was between B & E bc i thought if only those who believed they were susceptible to skin cancer used sunscreen then there was a high population of ppl who probably needed to wear sunscreen but didn't.. hence the increased amount of ppl w skin cancer. However, i didn't have to jump through as many hoops for B.
Dang it took me 5 minutes to be comfortable with B. I knew it was right but when placed against E it was a challenge. The only reason I didn't pick E was because of the word believe.
E is wrong because just because someone believes themselves to be X doesn't mean that belief is valid.
got it but 40 seconds over YIKES! considered E way too long
B seems completely irrelevant to the question. This one makes very little sense to me.
@MPFerrari The question says that despite the use of sunscreen growing over 25 years, the incidence of skin cancer has also grown. (B) says that the effects (cancer) from not using sunscreen (a sunburn) are only felt in very old people, decades later. For the argument to be valid, we would need to see if young people from the last 25 years develop cancer at the same rates as previous generations.
@MPFerrari I thought this too, at first, because I totally forgot about the mention of 25 years at the beginning of the stimulus. Factoring in the timeframe mentioned, it makes total sense.
This question got me because it felt like B didn't address the GROWTH of skin cancer incidents, only explaining why there would still be skin cancer despite sunscreen. I guess that's why the question says most weakens and not destroys.