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.
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.
@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.
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 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
#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 :(
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.
You can search for the question on Google (in the address bar, ie pt64-s1-q04), and the first 7Sage link that appears will be the one you need. Just avoid scrolling down too far to prevent seeing the answer.
You can search for the question on Google (in the address bar, ie pt64-s1-q04), and the first 7Sage link that appears will be the one you need. Just avoid scrolling down too far to prevent seeing the answer.
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".
Since it's not guaranteed that the causal logic in a stimulus will be relevant when choosing the correct answer, how do we know when we should chain up causal relationships? It just seems like it could be a potential time suck if it may not be relevant.
I think that's why we're practicing so much so that we internalize these causal claims. Then, during test day, we wouldn't have to explicitly draw out these causal claims. We can just read it, determine if it's relevant, pick an answer choice, move on.
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?
#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.
#help Why does a wider variety assume that the smaller group is a subset. If a store A sells a wider variety of fruit than store B, it doesn't mean that all of the fruit sold at store B is also sold at store A, it just means that store A has more options. Example store A sells pineapples, apples, and cherries, while store B only sells oranges. There is no intersection but store A still sells a wider variety of fruit.
In this case, I think the intersection is irrelevant if we want to weaken the conclusion that long term training is unwarranted. To weaken it we need to find a reason for why people would get the long term training basically.
If the short-term training has a wider variety of exercises (whether they overlap or not with the long term exercises) that does not necessarily mean that short term is more effective, but it certainly does not open the possibility that there is a reason to get long-term.
If the situation was inversed (long term has a wider variety), I think it would actually weaken the conclusion. Because it opens the possibility that there is some exercise done in the long-term training which gives people a reason to pick long term over short term.
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
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
97 comments
I'm going to need both the short and long term training because my LSAT anxiety levels are peaking
#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!
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
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 !
Would be highly valuable to see the answers before going over them
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.
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 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" ...........
#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
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
Anyone else feel like this question is too easy? I wish we reviewed mostly hard questions to make the prep tests feel easier
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.
Can we please have access to all answer choices before the correct answer is revealed? It would be so much easier to take notes.
I agree with this! #feedback
Agreed! I also think getting a chance to try the question on my own first would really help
You can search for the question on Google (in the address bar, ie pt64-s1-q04), and the first 7Sage link that appears will be the one you need. Just avoid scrolling down too far to prevent seeing the answer.
You can search for the question on Google (in the address bar, ie pt64-s1-q04), and the first 7Sage link that appears will be the one you need. Just avoid scrolling down too far to prevent seeing the answer.
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."
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
Since it's not guaranteed that the causal logic in a stimulus will be relevant when choosing the correct answer, how do we know when we should chain up causal relationships? It just seems like it could be a potential time suck if it may not be relevant.
#help
I think that's why we're practicing so much so that we internalize these causal claims. Then, during test day, we wouldn't have to explicitly draw out these causal claims. We can just read it, determine if it's relevant, pick an answer choice, move on.
That's the goal!
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?
#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
#help Why does a wider variety assume that the smaller group is a subset. If a store A sells a wider variety of fruit than store B, it doesn't mean that all of the fruit sold at store B is also sold at store A, it just means that store A has more options. Example store A sells pineapples, apples, and cherries, while store B only sells oranges. There is no intersection but store A still sells a wider variety of fruit.
In this case, I think the intersection is irrelevant if we want to weaken the conclusion that long term training is unwarranted. To weaken it we need to find a reason for why people would get the long term training basically.
If the short-term training has a wider variety of exercises (whether they overlap or not with the long term exercises) that does not necessarily mean that short term is more effective, but it certainly does not open the possibility that there is a reason to get long-term.
If the situation was inversed (long term has a wider variety), I think it would actually weaken the conclusion. Because it opens the possibility that there is some exercise done in the long-term training which gives people a reason to pick long term over short term.
This is something I was wondering to.
same #help
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
I don't understand why we can't just use the alternative hypothesis for this one. An alt hypo to explain why long term training is not needed?!?
It's crazy how I understand EVERY lesson but always get answers wrong when I do it myself. I dont understand
@marikitten03 the do it yourself questios tend to be a lot harder than the lesson ones. Don't beat yourself up, you got this!
@mrinaliniv92 exactlyyyy
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