Ugh I'm soo confused, could someone please explain to me what our objective is when dealing with Causal Mechanism and Causal Chains for both Strengthen and Weaken questions?
Up until now I have understood the Phenomenon hypothesis and the Ideal experiment framework, but I feel that this section does a poor job of effectively explaining what our objectives should be for Causal Mechanisms and Causal Chains; I seriously do not even understand how we are supposed to approach these. The "You Try's" for the Causal Mechanism's(AKA lesson 5) don't seem consistent enough for me to least at least derive a central theme, and then we have this???
So, for this type of question, when the question stem says "strengthen the reasoning of the argument," we are looking for the answer that strengthens the premise??
So for questions like this, are we looking at both premises, seeing which premise out of all has no causal mechanism, and finding a strengthening reasoning for that specific premise?
Dude, this made no sense. C litterally sounds just like an alternative hypothesis and disproves the first premise.
If the 1st premise is saying "mild winters increased forage, which decreased vistis to the feeders" then C claims that "no, the reason they don't come to feeders is becasue of predetors".
Conclusion: Last year’s mild winter reason for larger bird population.
Why: it was mild for bird to forage naturally and not visit feeders; they stayed home in summer range without migrating south.
Assumption: it's a strengthening question - we know that mild winter made it easier for birds to forage naturally... but what makes it so that foraging naturally (versus eating at feeders) is ALSO/ADDITIONALLY beneficial (other than the fact that the winter was mild)?
---> Answer choice C: eating at feeders = more dangerous because of predators; foraging naturally = easier because of the winter (milder makes it easier), but ALSO because it's safer (less vulnerable to predators).
Took me a while to figure out that I'm looking for a misssing premise rather than affriming the conclusion. atleast that what makes the mose sense to me in this case.
Not that i am not gaining a ton out of these classes - but does anyone else sometimes skip or pause the videos early if you find the explanation is over explaning or like causing you to overthink the solution?
Causal relationship questions require more work for me than all others. I hate them. Other types, I can read it, and work it all out in my head. Anyone feel the same way?
the questions we've been examining in this section were more directed towards finding an alternative hypothesis by strengthening/weakening the connection between the phenomenon and the conclusion. This question to me was distinctly different because it directly strengthened a weak phenomena that seemed non-essential, which strengthened the entire argument.
A critique about the explanations is its very obvious they know the answer and why its wrong, so the explanation just feels like 'think this way' rather than actually TEACHING. Its getting annoying lol
I wasn't understanding how C could be correct and then I reread the prompt, "Birds eating..." I had been reading the prompt as "Birds who eat at feeders..." and was like how does this apply to anything we are talking about birds at large not just feeder eating birds.
I understand how this can be seen as strengthening the reasoning, but wouldn't this also be adding an alternative hypothesis instead of enforcing the original conclusion.
In Answer choice - C why are we considering that predators could affect the feeders. The stimulus doesnt even mention any predators. Please help me out.
For strengthening questions, are the answers that mirror the conclusion (like answer choice A) wrong because they just mirror the conclusion rather than strengthen it?
I see why C is correct given the explanation of the stimulus.
But I don't understand how in the world we're to interpret the stimulus in that way. Stimulus directly says that attrition accompanies migration. It doesn't mention or refer in any way to feeding places. And reasonable inference of that would be something like that birds die during migration for whatever reason.
Please help. I don't get how we're to link attrition accompanying migration with feeding places and being vulnerable to predators.
Question - could you reasonably argue that just because the bird population increased over the winter, doesn't mean it increased over the entire year? I realize that doesn't show up in the ACs but wondering if that is a valid gap to identify.
I got C but I wanted it to be B so bad :( it would make so much more sense that they are mating more often since there are so many of them in the same place!!!!!
2
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!
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.
78 comments
how would you do this question if you do not know what "attrition" means?
I feel that I run into issues with not knowing the meaning of a word and then it impacts my ability to solve the question accurately.
#Help
Ugh I'm soo confused, could someone please explain to me what our objective is when dealing with Causal Mechanism and Causal Chains for both Strengthen and Weaken questions?
Up until now I have understood the Phenomenon hypothesis and the Ideal experiment framework, but I feel that this section does a poor job of effectively explaining what our objectives should be for Causal Mechanisms and Causal Chains; I seriously do not even understand how we are supposed to approach these. The "You Try's" for the Causal Mechanism's(AKA lesson 5) don't seem consistent enough for me to least at least derive a central theme, and then we have this???
So, for this type of question, when the question stem says "strengthen the reasoning of the argument," we are looking for the answer that strengthens the premise??
im having a hard time trying to figure out when it would be appropriate/good use of time to do a chain
I wonder if I would've gotten this right if I knew what attrition meant lol
So for questions like this, are we looking at both premises, seeing which premise out of all has no causal mechanism, and finding a strengthening reasoning for that specific premise?
Dude, this made no sense. C litterally sounds just like an alternative hypothesis and disproves the first premise.
If the 1st premise is saying "mild winters increased forage, which decreased vistis to the feeders" then C claims that "no, the reason they don't come to feeders is becasue of predetors".
how is a bird feeder more dangerous than in the wild??
Conclusion: Last year’s mild winter reason for larger bird population.
Why: it was mild for bird to forage naturally and not visit feeders; they stayed home in summer range without migrating south.
Assumption: it's a strengthening question - we know that mild winter made it easier for birds to forage naturally... but what makes it so that foraging naturally (versus eating at feeders) is ALSO/ADDITIONALLY beneficial (other than the fact that the winter was mild)?
---> Answer choice C: eating at feeders = more dangerous because of predators; foraging naturally = easier because of the winter (milder makes it easier), but ALSO because it's safer (less vulnerable to predators).
Took me a while to figure out that I'm looking for a misssing premise rather than affriming the conclusion. atleast that what makes the mose sense to me in this case.
My biggest opp is me....I didn't realize this was a strengthening question and nearly blew my brains out trying to figure out the answer....
Not that i am not gaining a ton out of these classes - but does anyone else sometimes skip or pause the videos early if you find the explanation is over explaning or like causing you to overthink the solution?
Causal relationship questions require more work for me than all others. I hate them. Other types, I can read it, and work it all out in my head. Anyone feel the same way?
the questions we've been examining in this section were more directed towards finding an alternative hypothesis by strengthening/weakening the connection between the phenomenon and the conclusion. This question to me was distinctly different because it directly strengthened a weak phenomena that seemed non-essential, which strengthened the entire argument.
A critique about the explanations is its very obvious they know the answer and why its wrong, so the explanation just feels like 'think this way' rather than actually TEACHING. Its getting annoying lol
also keep in mind it says the REASONING not the conclusion! that's why I looked at A to be a delicious answer !!
We have 10 minutes for a question like this right... right?
I wasn't understanding how C could be correct and then I reread the prompt, "Birds eating..." I had been reading the prompt as "Birds who eat at feeders..." and was like how does this apply to anything we are talking about birds at large not just feeder eating birds.
I just need to read the prompts more carefully.
How would you handle a casual chain in a premise in a prompt if it was a weaken question?
I understand how this can be seen as strengthening the reasoning, but wouldn't this also be adding an alternative hypothesis instead of enforcing the original conclusion.
In Answer choice - C why are we considering that predators could affect the feeders. The stimulus doesnt even mention any predators. Please help me out.
For strengthening questions, are the answers that mirror the conclusion (like answer choice A) wrong because they just mirror the conclusion rather than strengthen it?
I see why C is correct given the explanation of the stimulus.
But I don't understand how in the world we're to interpret the stimulus in that way. Stimulus directly says that attrition accompanies migration. It doesn't mention or refer in any way to feeding places. And reasonable inference of that would be something like that birds die during migration for whatever reason.
Please help. I don't get how we're to link attrition accompanying migration with feeding places and being vulnerable to predators.
Question - could you reasonably argue that just because the bird population increased over the winter, doesn't mean it increased over the entire year? I realize that doesn't show up in the ACs but wondering if that is a valid gap to identify.
I got C but I wanted it to be B so bad :( it would make so much more sense that they are mating more often since there are so many of them in the same place!!!!!