@ShafeenHasan I don't think so, since the conclusion at the end is about expense. I can see a version of this answer that would've weakened the answer.
Did anyone else get this question right quickly. It just seemed like most of the answers strengthen the logic of the stimulus rather than attacking it. C explains why long- term is worth it, i.e. it is warranted.
im just poe-ing every answer at this point. Every other answer brought up unnecessary subjects/ideas so I was stuck between A or C. A's solution basically neutralizes our therapy problem so i went with C.
Is it weird that when I am following my own way of answering both strengthening and weakening questions (ignoring the casual relationships and mechanism), I am getting them correct more often?
B felt more like the bait answer here, taking bits from the conclusion rather than the argument. also side note, enjoying argument weakening questions.
"Whenever an argument moves from purely descriptive premises to a value ladened conclusion, you should ask if everything we care about in this context has been discussed." I didn't see these premises as purely descriptive?
@Disney I turned it into a RRE. Take the conclusion and negate it to become for most peole the generally more expensive training is warrented. C is the only one that answers that. It is giving a benefit of Long term training.
@Disney i think i get lost in the first 5 mins of over explaining it. It’s so much to remember especially to be all wrong . I think it would probably help if all the answers are listed so we can look at them during the 15 min lesson.
@Theemrsmason In the very top page, under the Lesson Title, there's a button, that reads "Show question", click on it. It shows you the entire question and answer choices.
how are the doctors doing their jobs right if when you assign to long term and short term they both finish in a month I understand that they may use different techniques but it doesnt change the fact its still one month you would be over treating your patient
how did you know that there is overlap in the techniques taught in short term and long term training based on answer choice E? how could you tell it was a subset and superset relationship?
#feedback I am having trouble knowing the difference between non-causal and causal arguments, with the strengthening and weakening mixed in with both. I feel like every question is different and I can't tackle it the same way. I have gone through this lesson twice over and I still dont get it. I looked at the causal argument lessons in the core section and it didnt help :(
It's not as clear cut in my opinion because sometimes the correct a/c will weaken a phenomenon (premise) which then weakens the hypothesis (conclusion) as a whole.
@akashpreetriar you wanna weaken the support between the premises and the conclusion. A lot of times what you said will happen, as weakening the support between the premises and conclusion goes against the conclusion, but sometimes the answer may not directly address the final conclusion but rather a pivotal premise.
@akashpreetriar I wouldn't say it weakens the conclusion, but it certainly casts doubt on it. In this case, if the goal is to reduce your anxiety quickly, then the conclusion is pretty solid. But if you're evaluating the validity of "short term is better than long term", then B doesn't guarantee that it isn't true, but it makes it much shakier
Confused on E. Wouldn't the fact that short term methods use more skills vs long term methods move the experiment further away from the "ideal experiment?" In this case, the time isn't the reason for the success, its the fact that different techniques are being employed.... making the argument weaker. What am I missing? #help
The conclusion is not about the causal effect of the length of time on the value of training per se, but merely that long-term training is unwarranted. If the conclusion was making a broader argument that the value of training generally decreases with time, I think you would be right.
For instance, if you were to add E to the stimulus by adding a sentence after the second sentence that said "Furthermore, short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training." That wouldn't really hurt the validity of the conclusion in any way. I think it would just be irrelevant because it requires us to assume that a wider variety of relaxation techniques is in someway superior to a narrower variety.
Quickest approach for me is to ask 1. Is it on topic? and 2. Does it weaken the argument best?
C to me is first on topic (or relevant) to info provided and weakens best since it counters what argument states through focusing in on stim provided info: the recurrence of problematic anxiety levels.
E first is on topic, but does not weaken argument best since it is supporting our argument statement by affirming it COMPARED TO C
This is one of the first ones where my intuition picked up on the assumption RIGHT away! So validating and fulfilling that it felt like it finally "clicked".
Do you guys try doing the question before hand on these lessons and then watch the video? Or do you do it with him? Lately, I have been trying these before hand and if I get it right I skip the video, seems like a bad idea. Any thoughts on this?
Definitely agree on this point. I'll usually try and solve the question untimed through viewing the question on the 'Quick View' tab.
For me, a useful technique has been to solve the question, and then write a brief sentence or two next to each answer choice as to why I deemed it correct or incorrect. This has helped when going into the video tutorial-- I can see if my evaluation of each answer choice was similar to the tutor's reasoning. Additionally, it helps to recognize common patterns in certain question types. Also, this strategy is helpful for keeping me engaged when the video tutorial starts discussing the other answer choices-- otherwise, after the tutor finishes discussing the choice I selected, I'll tend to zone out.
Everyone's study method is different, though. Best of luck to you! We got this.
I definitely recommend watching the videos. These are not like the video explanations that are connected to the random questions we do in drills or practice tests. For those, I only watch the videos for the ones I got wrong or was slow answering. These videos, however, are designed to each provide you with important knowledge that applies broadly to the test in general. If you are skipping the lessons regularly, you will miss out on the little pieces of strategy and advice JY provides us with that will be essential for solving easy questions fast, solving difficult questions at all, and developing overall fluency in the lsat. Many people hit "plateau" for this reason. They just zoom through the answers they can accomplish using their intuition or basic understanding of the lsat, and then are unequip to face the rigors that the lsat requires of you to achieve high scores. Hope this was helpful, best of luck to you.
I think this is a weird video that makes the question much harder than necessary. Instead of trying to get us to differentiate between causal and non-causal logic (I'm not really even sure what that means in this case), why not just have us look at it exactly like any other question:
Does the answer make the argument stronger or weaker?
What would this look like? Well...
The conclusion of the argument is:
"Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted."
Okay, so I've got to look for an answer that points toward a warrant (reason) for the long-term training that the study overlooked, or that undermines the premise that the short term length is good enough for anyone.
Ok, so off to the answers:
(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a
mental health professional.
If this is true, it makes the argument much stronger. Why pay for expensive long-term training when you'd do better by getting on with your life?
(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.
The explanation given in the video makes perfect sense. The conclusion just says "generally." So of course there can be exceptions.
Right answer (C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.
Oh! Great! If this is true, it gives a great reason to do long term training, even if it is more expensive. Those old premises don't seem to bring you to that conclusion very well anymore.
(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual's anxiety.
If this is true, it makes the argument maybe a little stronger, certainly not weaker. Don't pay for expensive training when all you really need to do is pay for anything you think will be effective. Since you just heard this argument that said short term time frame is all you need, why wouldn't you go with the cheaper short term training? Of course, (D) would not convince someone who insisted that the only thing that would work for her would be the long term training, but that is fine. Our conclusion doesn't need everyone to be on board. It's just generally.
(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.
The fact that the short-term training involves a wider variety of techniques gives me no reason to take the long-term class in violation of the argument's conclusion. Not weakened. (Okay, okay, so maybe there is one guy who hates learning more than 1 or 2 techniques. So he can take the long-term course. Good for him. Generally, though, I assume most people don't have that kind of aversion to learning a couple extra techniques, and thus would have no reason to reject the conclusion after learning this new fact.)
It's all about how the premises support the conclusion, and how the addition of another fact (one of the answers) changes the strength of the relationship between premise(s) and conclusion(s). Causal, non-causal; potato, potato.
There isn't a substantive difference in the sense that one kind of assumption has more of a certain quality than another. There's only a difference in that, when we're evaluating an argument that seems to involve causal relationship, we should keep in mind that there are assumptions that aren't related to the causal assumptions. So, don't get tunnel-visioned about potential correct answers just because the argument involves causal logic.
Do you all always read through the full explanation/watch the full video? Sometimes they're so drawn out and convoluted I just read the summary at the end to get the idea of what I did right/wrong.
I'm going to start doing this. I tried to stay for the whole explanation to make sure I completely understood everything, but as you mentioned, it's very convoluted.
@lekhareddyschool65 I watch the videos on high speed and then drop down to a lower speed at parts I don't understand. Otherwise, I'll never get thru my study plan in time
#feedback from time to time the speed , volume, and CC buttons just disappear for me. Idk if this is a problem with the website or a setting on my browser.
#feedback please start giving more difficult question for review. There is always an easier question we review before giving us the 'you try'. So discouraging!
92 comments
It's crazy how I understand EVERY lesson but always get answers wrong when I do it myself. I dont understand
could b also be wrong because it doesnt address anxiety at all?
@ShafeenHasan I don't think so, since the conclusion at the end is about expense. I can see a version of this answer that would've weakened the answer.
Can someone explain: Why is attacking the stilumus for not being an ideal experiment wrong? I thought that would weaken the argument.
@emmasabin I think he explains in a previous module that it is just sooo unlikely on the LSAT
Did anyone else get this question right quickly. It just seemed like most of the answers strengthen the logic of the stimulus rather than attacking it. C explains why long- term is worth it, i.e. it is warranted.
im just poe-ing every answer at this point. Every other answer brought up unnecessary subjects/ideas so I was stuck between A or C. A's solution basically neutralizes our therapy problem so i went with C.
Is it weird that when I am following my own way of answering both strengthening and weakening questions (ignoring the casual relationships and mechanism), I am getting them correct more often?
B felt more like the bait answer here, taking bits from the conclusion rather than the argument. also side note, enjoying argument weakening questions.
"Whenever an argument moves from purely descriptive premises to a value ladened conclusion, you should ask if everything we care about in this context has been discussed." I didn't see these premises as purely descriptive?
@Isabella! What did you see these premises as, if not purely descriptive?
anyone else just lost
@Disney I turned it into a RRE. Take the conclusion and negate it to become for most peole the generally more expensive training is warrented. C is the only one that answers that. It is giving a benefit of Long term training.
@kianarad Can you apply this trick to other weaken questions? Or how could you apply this?
@Disney i think i get lost in the first 5 mins of over explaining it. It’s so much to remember especially to be all wrong . I think it would probably help if all the answers are listed so we can look at them during the 15 min lesson.
@Theemrsmason In the very top page, under the Lesson Title, there's a button, that reads "Show question", click on it. It shows you the entire question and answer choices.
@Ivan35 thank you !
recurrence is the first thing I thought of lol lets gooooooo
how are the doctors doing their jobs right if when you assign to long term and short term they both finish in a month I understand that they may use different techniques but it doesnt change the fact its still one month you would be over treating your patient
how did you know that there is overlap in the techniques taught in short term and long term training based on answer choice E? how could you tell it was a subset and superset relationship?
I think this is also a question that shows the importance in understanding your conclusion.
Conclusion here states why LONG TERM training is unwarranted.
Answer should address Long Term (directly... I think
#feedback I am having trouble knowing the difference between non-causal and causal arguments, with the strengthening and weakening mixed in with both. I feel like every question is different and I can't tackle it the same way. I have gone through this lesson twice over and I still dont get it. I looked at the causal argument lessons in the core section and it didnt help :(
@kimwexler SAME :(
@kimwexler by chance, have you seen better call Saul? I noticed your name lmao
Basically, weakening question is what factor would counter the conclusion made by the argument.
It's not as clear cut in my opinion because sometimes the correct a/c will weaken a phenomenon (premise) which then weakens the hypothesis (conclusion) as a whole.
@akashpreetriar you wanna weaken the support between the premises and the conclusion. A lot of times what you said will happen, as weakening the support between the premises and conclusion goes against the conclusion, but sometimes the answer may not directly address the final conclusion but rather a pivotal premise.
@akashpreetriar I wouldn't say it weakens the conclusion, but it certainly casts doubt on it. In this case, if the goal is to reduce your anxiety quickly, then the conclusion is pretty solid. But if you're evaluating the validity of "short term is better than long term", then B doesn't guarantee that it isn't true, but it makes it much shakier
Confused on E. Wouldn't the fact that short term methods use more skills vs long term methods move the experiment further away from the "ideal experiment?" In this case, the time isn't the reason for the success, its the fact that different techniques are being employed.... making the argument weaker. What am I missing? #help
The conclusion is not about the causal effect of the length of time on the value of training per se, but merely that long-term training is unwarranted. If the conclusion was making a broader argument that the value of training generally decreases with time, I think you would be right.
For instance, if you were to add E to the stimulus by adding a sentence after the second sentence that said "Furthermore, short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training." That wouldn't really hurt the validity of the conclusion in any way. I think it would just be irrelevant because it requires us to assume that a wider variety of relaxation techniques is in someway superior to a narrower variety.
Quickest approach for me is to ask 1. Is it on topic? and 2. Does it weaken the argument best?
C to me is first on topic (or relevant) to info provided and weakens best since it counters what argument states through focusing in on stim provided info: the recurrence of problematic anxiety levels.
E first is on topic, but does not weaken argument best since it is supporting our argument statement by affirming it COMPARED TO C
This is one of the first ones where my intuition picked up on the assumption RIGHT away! So validating and fulfilling that it felt like it finally "clicked".
Same here! I immediately read the stimulus and thought "but what about how often anxiety returns?" Feels good to make progress!
Omg same! I even joked in my head, saying, "Imagine that IS the assumption."
Do you guys try doing the question before hand on these lessons and then watch the video? Or do you do it with him? Lately, I have been trying these before hand and if I get it right I skip the video, seems like a bad idea. Any thoughts on this?
Definitely agree on this point. I'll usually try and solve the question untimed through viewing the question on the 'Quick View' tab.
For me, a useful technique has been to solve the question, and then write a brief sentence or two next to each answer choice as to why I deemed it correct or incorrect. This has helped when going into the video tutorial-- I can see if my evaluation of each answer choice was similar to the tutor's reasoning. Additionally, it helps to recognize common patterns in certain question types. Also, this strategy is helpful for keeping me engaged when the video tutorial starts discussing the other answer choices-- otherwise, after the tutor finishes discussing the choice I selected, I'll tend to zone out.
Everyone's study method is different, though. Best of luck to you! We got this.
I definitely recommend watching the videos. These are not like the video explanations that are connected to the random questions we do in drills or practice tests. For those, I only watch the videos for the ones I got wrong or was slow answering. These videos, however, are designed to each provide you with important knowledge that applies broadly to the test in general. If you are skipping the lessons regularly, you will miss out on the little pieces of strategy and advice JY provides us with that will be essential for solving easy questions fast, solving difficult questions at all, and developing overall fluency in the lsat. Many people hit "plateau" for this reason. They just zoom through the answers they can accomplish using their intuition or basic understanding of the lsat, and then are unequip to face the rigors that the lsat requires of you to achieve high scores. Hope this was helpful, best of luck to you.
I think that being able to identify the conclusion/argument in the stimulus is the most important skill for these types of questions.
real
:( I feel the explanation made the questions sooo difficult.... brain fart big time
#feedback
I think this is a weird video that makes the question much harder than necessary. Instead of trying to get us to differentiate between causal and non-causal logic (I'm not really even sure what that means in this case), why not just have us look at it exactly like any other question:
Does the answer make the argument stronger or weaker?
What would this look like? Well...
The conclusion of the argument is:
"Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted."
Okay, so I've got to look for an answer that points toward a warrant (reason) for the long-term training that the study overlooked, or that undermines the premise that the short term length is good enough for anyone.
Ok, so off to the answers:
(A) A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a
mental health professional.
If this is true, it makes the argument much stronger. Why pay for expensive long-term training when you'd do better by getting on with your life?
(B) Short-term relaxation training conducted by a more experienced practitioner can be more expensive than long-term training conducted by a less experienced practitioner.
The explanation given in the video makes perfect sense. The conclusion just says "generally." So of course there can be exceptions.
Right answer (C) Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.
Oh! Great! If this is true, it gives a great reason to do long term training, even if it is more expensive. Those old premises don't seem to bring you to that conclusion very well anymore.
(D) The fact that an individual thinks that a treatment will reduce his or her anxiety tends, in and of itself, to reduce the individual's anxiety.
If this is true, it makes the argument maybe a little stronger, certainly not weaker. Don't pay for expensive training when all you really need to do is pay for anything you think will be effective. Since you just heard this argument that said short term time frame is all you need, why wouldn't you go with the cheaper short term training? Of course, (D) would not convince someone who insisted that the only thing that would work for her would be the long term training, but that is fine. Our conclusion doesn't need everyone to be on board. It's just generally.
(E) Short-term relaxation training involves the teaching of a wider variety of anxiety-combating relaxation techniques than does long-term training.
The fact that the short-term training involves a wider variety of techniques gives me no reason to take the long-term class in violation of the argument's conclusion. Not weakened. (Okay, okay, so maybe there is one guy who hates learning more than 1 or 2 techniques. So he can take the long-term course. Good for him. Generally, though, I assume most people don't have that kind of aversion to learning a couple extra techniques, and thus would have no reason to reject the conclusion after learning this new fact.)
It's all about how the premises support the conclusion, and how the addition of another fact (one of the answers) changes the strength of the relationship between premise(s) and conclusion(s). Causal, non-causal; potato, potato.
thank you!
@pepper-tootles-9p After watching the video, this helped so much more. Thanks!
#help What's the difference between causal and non-causal assumptions made in arguments that rely on causal logic?
There isn't a substantive difference in the sense that one kind of assumption has more of a certain quality than another. There's only a difference in that, when we're evaluating an argument that seems to involve causal relationship, we should keep in mind that there are assumptions that aren't related to the causal assumptions. So, don't get tunnel-visioned about potential correct answers just because the argument involves causal logic.
Do you all always read through the full explanation/watch the full video? Sometimes they're so drawn out and convoluted I just read the summary at the end to get the idea of what I did right/wrong.
I'm going to start doing this. I tried to stay for the whole explanation to make sure I completely understood everything, but as you mentioned, it's very convoluted.
@lekhareddyschool65 I watch the videos on high speed and then drop down to a lower speed at parts I don't understand. Otherwise, I'll never get thru my study plan in time
#feedback from time to time the speed , volume, and CC buttons just disappear for me. Idk if this is a problem with the website or a setting on my browser.
refresh the page
#feedback please start giving more difficult question for review. There is always an easier question we review before giving us the 'you try'. So discouraging!