I am still a bit confused on question 5. The author is saying there was a fast food boom and there has been a surge in obesity rates, so that could be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits. However, could you not also say there has been decreased activity and change in dietary habits...why? because of the fast food boom of the 1980's and obesity rates. I feel like this one could be flipped and still make sense.
How do I know when it's one premise vs two/does the matter? For example, given that Question 2 is 2 separate premises, I would have assumed that Question 3 would be 2 premises as well: 1.) "Since the residents' reviews about the new park have been exceptionally good" and 2.) "because this park is vital for their community interaction" rather than one combined premise.
I don't really understand 4 & 5. For 4, it doesn't make sense for me to have "therefore" in front of another premise. And 5, this doesn't seem like an argument.
I feel slow trying to understand 5 lol. It makes 0 sense to me. How is he trying to prove almost all of a surge in obesity can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits, from the fact that nutritionists noticed a surge in obesity after the fast food boom. These are not fully coorelated and the premise just doesnt support the conclusion well. Any tips?
Why is "we are not always certain how distinct from our current state something needs to be to constitute “true happiness.” " not a conclusion? Anyone have insight?
I think the issue with #5 is that most of us who got this wrong got caught up in, "there has been a surge in obesity rates." because it described the result of the fast food boom. I'm not gunna lie, I got excited and thought that was it, but I can see why it's not. The entire argument spoke about this surge and then all of a sudden introduced physical activity and dietary habits. It strung us along for some random conclusion, which was annoying, but nevertheless all of that stringing along was to explain why the surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits.
I am confused on question 5. Those two sentences don't seem related to me, so how are they an argument in the first place? The first sentence is discussing fast food and the second, activity habits. They are both related to obesity rates but I don't see how the "premise" is supporting the conclusion?
How much does it matter if I include "because" and "for" in my premise selections? For example, in some of the skill builders right before this, when the answer was revealed, they did not highlight the word "because" as part of the premise, but rather left it completely unhighlighted. In this skill builder, when the answer is revealed, they are including "because" and "for" in what they are saying the premise is. Is there a reason for that, or does it kind of not matter if you include those words.
1
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.
155 comments
I am still a bit confused on question 5. The author is saying there was a fast food boom and there has been a surge in obesity rates, so that could be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits. However, could you not also say there has been decreased activity and change in dietary habits...why? because of the fast food boom of the 1980's and obesity rates. I feel like this one could be flipped and still make sense.
How do I know when it's one premise vs two/does the matter? For example, given that Question 2 is 2 separate premises, I would have assumed that Question 3 would be 2 premises as well: 1.) "Since the residents' reviews about the new park have been exceptionally good" and 2.) "because this park is vital for their community interaction" rather than one combined premise.
4/5. 5 really got me. I switched the conclusion and the premise and even second guessed if it was an argument
5/5 AGAIN LETS GO!
5 does not seem like an argument, he has no premise for decreased physical activity.
I don't really understand 4 & 5. For 4, it doesn't make sense for me to have "therefore" in front of another premise. And 5, this doesn't seem like an argument.
I feel slow trying to understand 5 lol. It makes 0 sense to me. How is he trying to prove almost all of a surge in obesity can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits, from the fact that nutritionists noticed a surge in obesity after the fast food boom. These are not fully coorelated and the premise just doesnt support the conclusion well. Any tips?
4/5 so far I feel confident
I keep getting a 3/5, any tips on how I can get 5/5's?
5/5. Feeling good about this stuff!
Why is "we are not always certain how distinct from our current state something needs to be to constitute “true happiness.” " not a conclusion? Anyone have insight?
I got it all correctly, but am worried because I feel like I'm not a fast reader.
my first 5/5! im ngl question 5 almost got me lol
5/5
5/5 - Question 4 definitely had me confused for a hot minute.
5/5 again I might not be cooked
So, the premise and the conclusion can play games.
Number four tripped me up. Can we move indicator words around to fit something else? For ex.
Premise: The costs for taxpayers who fail to file their returns on time are now much higher than it would have been to file them in a timely manner.
Premise: ...since taxpayers value their earnings and peace of mind...
Conclusion: Therefore, those that might have missed the deadline will now strive to file on time.
We added therefore onto the sentence that was originally attached to," therefore, since taxpayers value their earnings and peace of mind."
5/5, I think it's slowly starting to become intuition at this point which is great.
5/5!!!!
I think the issue with #5 is that most of us who got this wrong got caught up in, "there has been a surge in obesity rates." because it described the result of the fast food boom. I'm not gunna lie, I got excited and thought that was it, but I can see why it's not. The entire argument spoke about this surge and then all of a sudden introduced physical activity and dietary habits. It strung us along for some random conclusion, which was annoying, but nevertheless all of that stringing along was to explain why the surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits.
I finally got all 5 right.
I got number 5 wrong.
I selected...
C: "Surge in obesity rates"
P1: "noticed that since the fast food boom of the 1980s"
P2: " Consequently almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits."
I did identify the word "consequently but decided that was not the conclusion because its been emphasized not to rely on indicator words.
I guess I thought it alls focused on obesity. Can someone clarify why I am wrong? I hope this question makes sense.
I am confused on question 5. Those two sentences don't seem related to me, so how are they an argument in the first place? The first sentence is discussing fast food and the second, activity habits. They are both related to obesity rates but I don't see how the "premise" is supporting the conclusion?
How much does it matter if I include "because" and "for" in my premise selections? For example, in some of the skill builders right before this, when the answer was revealed, they did not highlight the word "because" as part of the premise, but rather left it completely unhighlighted. In this skill builder, when the answer is revealed, they are including "because" and "for" in what they are saying the premise is. Is there a reason for that, or does it kind of not matter if you include those words.