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.
Here's my thinking for Question 2. The first statement is a minor premise for the sub-conclusion that companies want to maximize their profits. The second claim, because companies aim to maximize their profits is the sub-conclusion/major premise for the main conclusion of those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives. I'm thinking claim 1 is the minor premise because all companies aim to maximize their profits, therefore, they will now shift to produce healthier alternatives.
For Question 3 I thought, since the residents' reviews about the new park have been exceptionally good was the minor premise for the sub-conclusion because this park is vital for their community interaction. I thought that the city council will definitely consider its expansion was the main conclusion because it is what the city council will do.
For Question 4 I thought, and I think I'm correct even though the tutor didn't explicitly say, 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 was the minor premise. I thought that because there was a therefore, since, it would naturally lead to the sub-conclusion, so since taxpayers value their earning and peace of mind would be sub-conclusion/major premise. Finally, those that might have missed the deadline will now strive to file on time would be the major conclusion. Or is my assumption that it wasn't explicit unreasonable?
so to clarify, a premise/conclusion can be a clause and not a complete sentence? in the first question, one of the premises is "Because companies aim to maximize their profits" but i accidentally identified it as also part of the conclusion. In the lesson "identifying premises and conclusions" i got that indicators don't have to appear at the beginning of a sentence or clause, but i didn't realize that a clause itself can count as a premise or conclusion? does this make sense?
What is the difference between a bad argument (with very little support and many assumptions) and a series of facts that is not considered an argument? is a spectrum or is there a district way to tell?
For question 5: logically and reasonably the sentence after the conclusion indicator doesn't seem to be a conclusion. For some reason, I also thought that this question could be considered a factual statement.
Can you please provide a clarification on these two concepts: argument vs factual claim and how to distinguish?
I assume that there will be conclusion indicators and 100% premise indicators in factual statements. How to discern between the two?
For question #2, if we remove the "Because companies aim to maximize their profits," would "those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives" still be considered a conclusion since it is technically supported by the first premise/sentence?
#feedback Can you add the highlighted tools? please?
3
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.
136 comments
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.
Here's my thinking for Question 2. The first statement is a minor premise for the sub-conclusion that companies want to maximize their profits. The second claim, because companies aim to maximize their profits is the sub-conclusion/major premise for the main conclusion of those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives. I'm thinking claim 1 is the minor premise because all companies aim to maximize their profits, therefore, they will now shift to produce healthier alternatives.
For Question 3 I thought, since the residents' reviews about the new park have been exceptionally good was the minor premise for the sub-conclusion because this park is vital for their community interaction. I thought that the city council will definitely consider its expansion was the main conclusion because it is what the city council will do.
For Question 4 I thought, and I think I'm correct even though the tutor didn't explicitly say, 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 was the minor premise. I thought that because there was a therefore, since, it would naturally lead to the sub-conclusion, so since taxpayers value their earning and peace of mind would be sub-conclusion/major premise. Finally, those that might have missed the deadline will now strive to file on time would be the major conclusion. Or is my assumption that it wasn't explicit unreasonable?
Is it just me, or does the video explanation just skip over question 3
5/5!!! 🤫🧏♂️
so to clarify, a premise/conclusion can be a clause and not a complete sentence? in the first question, one of the premises is "Because companies aim to maximize their profits" but i accidentally identified it as also part of the conclusion. In the lesson "identifying premises and conclusions" i got that indicators don't have to appear at the beginning of a sentence or clause, but i didn't realize that a clause itself can count as a premise or conclusion? does this make sense?
What is the difference between a bad argument (with very little support and many assumptions) and a series of facts that is not considered an argument? is a spectrum or is there a district way to tell?
Does question 3 contain two premises?
#feedback
question three was skipped
For question 5: logically and reasonably the sentence after the conclusion indicator doesn't seem to be a conclusion. For some reason, I also thought that this question could be considered a factual statement.
Can you please provide a clarification on these two concepts: argument vs factual claim and how to distinguish?
I assume that there will be conclusion indicators and 100% premise indicators in factual statements. How to discern between the two?
For question #2, if we remove the "Because companies aim to maximize their profits," would "those companies that might produce such foods will now shift towards healthier alternatives" still be considered a conclusion since it is technically supported by the first premise/sentence?
On the LSAT will we be asked to distinguish between the two premises if there are more than one?
For Question 2,
Can't the first sentence be context?
Question 5:
I don’t understand how the the sentence is the conclusion. It doesn’t feel right to me because it seems like it makes a big leap from the premise:
"Consequently, almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits."
#feedback Can you add the highlighted tools? please?