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?
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.
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 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!
I wish you guys would use a difficult question to explain the lesson - this question feels a bit obvious but the prep question we try our selves are a lot harder
The major question I had while viewing the video was how could we know if this question is to be thought about in an experimental sense.
Another question I had was if A or D was to be a true AC then what specifically should they be targeting about the stimuli in an experimental setting (LT, ST, or the control group)? #help
I feel very frustrated with the explanations for why answers A and D are wrong. I certainly don't think they are right, but I don't really follow J.Y's logic on the explanation for why they are wrong.
I don't see why setting up the perfect experiment is important when we have the benefit of the answer choices being true. I don't need a control group in the stimulus to prove that answer A, which says that a decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention, is true. Because we get to assume it's true!
I don't know if this is a good reason to forgo the whole perfect experiment line of thinking or if it's just relevant to this one question, but my way of thinking of it was not in terms of experimental design but rather that A and D don't weaken the argument, they strengthen it. Either being true would strengthen the idea long-term treatment (or, treatment in general, for A) is unwarranted.
I feel like JY at times over explains. These lessons are good but I feel as though the reason for why an answer is wrong isn't that deep. It ends up confusing me in the long run.
I actually did guess something extremely similar to C upon reading the stimulus. I haven't been doing the charting or alternative hypothesis for any of these, and have been doing decent on this section. But with that, I do not see how C was something that we "probably didn't think of". I usually do not see the common sense in any of these questions lol, but this one felt very obvious to me. Hopefully it carries for the rest of the "non-causal" questions.
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.
76 comments
anyone else just lost
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?
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.
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 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!
Anyone else feel like this question is too easy? I wish we reviewed mostly hard questions to make the prep tests feel easier
I wish you guys would use a difficult question to explain the lesson - this question feels a bit obvious but the prep question we try our selves are a lot harder
oh yeah suuuuuuuuuper "obvious" ...........
The major question I had while viewing the video was how could we know if this question is to be thought about in an experimental sense.
Another question I had was if A or D was to be a true AC then what specifically should they be targeting about the stimuli in an experimental setting (LT, ST, or the control group)? #help
I know he said "you can't predict this" but as someone who is in long-term therapy, I immediately thought of C without seeing the answer choices.
I love when I have background knowledge on the information presented in a question.
I feel very frustrated with the explanations for why answers A and D are wrong. I certainly don't think they are right, but I don't really follow J.Y's logic on the explanation for why they are wrong.
I don't see why setting up the perfect experiment is important when we have the benefit of the answer choices being true. I don't need a control group in the stimulus to prove that answer A, which says that a decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention, is true. Because we get to assume it's true!
Any insight?
I was also a little confused by the process here.
I don't know if this is a good reason to forgo the whole perfect experiment line of thinking or if it's just relevant to this one question, but my way of thinking of it was not in terms of experimental design but rather that A and D don't weaken the argument, they strengthen it. Either being true would strengthen the idea long-term treatment (or, treatment in general, for A) is unwarranted.
I feel like JY at times over explains. These lessons are good but I feel as though the reason for why an answer is wrong isn't that deep. It ends up confusing me in the long run.
This question makes me need some relaxation training
I actually did guess something extremely similar to C upon reading the stimulus. I haven't been doing the charting or alternative hypothesis for any of these, and have been doing decent on this section. But with that, I do not see how C was something that we "probably didn't think of". I usually do not see the common sense in any of these questions lol, but this one felt very obvious to me. Hopefully it carries for the rest of the "non-causal" questions.
Update: the rest of this section I still did decent. So this question was kind of a fluke lol. More practice is needed!