Ah nuts, only 4/5 this time. I assumed that the conclusion of Q5 was the short snipet about nutritionists seeing a surge in obesity rates with the support coming from the fast food boom, decreased activity, and dietary habits. I am a bit of an over-thinker so this one's definitely on me, bros
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.
@AbigailAhia It was a trick to try and get you to read into what followed the word "since" instead of paying attention to the use of the word, "consequently."
"There has been a surge in obesity rates," is a sub conclusion.
"There has been a surge in obesity rates," weakly supports the conclusion stated after the use of, consequently.
Are we trying to prove what nutritionist had noticed, or are we trying to prove that obesity surge is due to dietary habits.
The way I often look at structure questions, is form a question of what the 'speaker' is trying to prove. In this statement, it is outright said that Nutritionist noticed something. It's not something that needs to be proved in the argument, so it doesn't (for me) work the other way.
Forgot to include: There has been a surge in OR---also stated as 'fact' to me. Not what is trying to be proved.
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.
@DavidCollins It's not a convincing argument. But by using the word "consequently," the author of the argument is indicating that he thinks the 1st sentence is something that proves the second. That's why we can still call it an argument.
@Kevin_Lin so even if one of the premises is a restatement of a different author's claims-- as long as the author themselves is making the conclusion, we can call it an argument?
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.
@sapalmeri For question 4, I think you were confused by the commas. I would recommend reading "The Loophole" by Ellen Cassidy (specifically her lesson on commas and middle-out theory). For question 5 , the word "consequently" is a very common conclusion indicator (you can also think of it as saying "as a result"), I would recommend memorizing the indicators.
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?
@PatrickBonna One of the tricks that was mentioned in one of the earlier videos, pointed out to identify the conclusion by understanding what the author is trying to convince you of. Example if I said "In the summer it tends to be very hot when the son is out because the sun is out, it must be very hot today. The premise is the basis for an argument. My argument is and what i'm concluding is that it's hot today and my support i am using is in the summer it tends to be very hot. If I add another premise to support this, my argument will still be that it must be very hot today. I hope this helps a little!
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?
@CollinEsquirol To my knowledge, that claim is "supporting" the claim before it: "Defining true happiness can indeed be complicated,". By definition, it is a premise. Premise provides support and conclusion receives support, so the sentence before it is the conclusion.
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.
167 comments
Ah nuts, only 4/5 this time. I assumed that the conclusion of Q5 was the short snipet about nutritionists seeing a surge in obesity rates with the support coming from the fast food boom, decreased activity, and dietary habits. I am a bit of an over-thinker so this one's definitely on me, bros
On question 5 I immediately noted the temporal use of the word "since".
However, I overcomplicated the premise conclusion structure.
I thought that the conclusion was as simple as "there has been a surge in obesity rates". Clear and not really dependent on the 1980's.
Then I thought that the obesity rate surge could be explained and supported by the physical activity and dietary habits.
Honestly even saying this out loud now. I kinda believe it LOL.
Question 5 is confusing.
Let's simplify it.
P. I noticed my hair is falling a lot recently.
C. Consequently, the reason for my hair fall is the shampoo I'm using right now.
Why do I believe that the shampoo I'm using is the reason for my hair fall?
Because my hair is falling a lot recently.
It sounds silly!
The double premises are tripping me up - 3/5 :((((
5/5 locked in
#BEASTMODE
I got #2 wrong idk how I got tripped up
didn't go over #2?
5/5 - okay small victories
For question #2, I would have thought that the 1st sentence was background/context. Generally, can background information still serve as a premise?
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.
@AbigailAhia It was a trick to try and get you to read into what followed the word "since" instead of paying attention to the use of the word, "consequently."
"There has been a surge in obesity rates," is a sub conclusion.
"There has been a surge in obesity rates," weakly supports the conclusion stated after the use of, consequently.
@AbigailAhia
The way I looked at it was---
Are we trying to prove what nutritionist had noticed, or are we trying to prove that obesity surge is due to dietary habits.
The way I often look at structure questions, is form a question of what the 'speaker' is trying to prove. In this statement, it is outright said that Nutritionist noticed something. It's not something that needs to be proved in the argument, so it doesn't (for me) work the other way.
Forgot to include: There has been a surge in OR---also stated as 'fact' to me. Not what is trying to be proved.
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.
@DavidCollins It's not a convincing argument. But by using the word "consequently," the author of the argument is indicating that he thinks the 1st sentence is something that proves the second. That's why we can still call it an argument.
@Kevin_Lin so even if one of the premises is a restatement of a different author's claims-- as long as the author themselves is making the conclusion, we can call it an argument?
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.
@sapalmeri For question 4, I think you were confused by the commas. I would recommend reading "The Loophole" by Ellen Cassidy (specifically her lesson on commas and middle-out theory). For question 5 , the word "consequently" is a very common conclusion indicator (you can also think of it as saying "as a result"), I would recommend memorizing the indicators.
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?
@PatrickBonna One of the tricks that was mentioned in one of the earlier videos, pointed out to identify the conclusion by understanding what the author is trying to convince you of. Example if I said "In the summer it tends to be very hot when the son is out because the sun is out, it must be very hot today. The premise is the basis for an argument. My argument is and what i'm concluding is that it's hot today and my support i am using is in the summer it tends to be very hot. If I add another premise to support this, my argument will still be that it must be very hot today. I hope this helps a little!
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?
@CollinEsquirol To my knowledge, that claim is "supporting" the claim before it: "Defining true happiness can indeed be complicated,". By definition, it is a premise. Premise provides support and conclusion receives support, so the sentence before it is the conclusion.
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.