#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 :(
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
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 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.
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.
#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 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.
I have been approaching the strengthen/weaken questions with a different approach than he has introduced in these lessons, and it has seemed to work out so far. For this question, I was able to get rid of answers if they seemed to focus on the premises or could possibly help the conclusion-- rather than note that they addressed the structural issues in the stimulus. I got C correct because it seemed to state an opposition to the conclusion. I have noticed this for the weakening questions -- that the answer choice cannot exist within the stimulus as it is stated.
Does anyone else think like this? I am worried that this thinking may not be as helpful as it has seemed to be so far...
For anyone having trouble on WHY C is correct - C engages directly with the argument. It says "Actually, long term relaxation training is valuable because...".
I felt like B is a beautiful trap answer at first, until I read the last part where it said, "less experienced"- like, who cares? As J would say if they are more or less experienced practitioners, the argument is not about that.
Would be highly valuable to see the answers before going over them
19
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.
69 comments
#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 :(
Basically, weakening question is what factor would counter the conclusion made by the argument.
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
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 think that being able to identify the conclusion/argument in the stimulus is the most important skill for these types of questions.
:( 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.
#help What's the difference between causal and non-causal assumptions made in arguments that rely on 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.
#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!
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
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 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 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.
I have been approaching the strengthen/weaken questions with a different approach than he has introduced in these lessons, and it has seemed to work out so far. For this question, I was able to get rid of answers if they seemed to focus on the premises or could possibly help the conclusion-- rather than note that they addressed the structural issues in the stimulus. I got C correct because it seemed to state an opposition to the conclusion. I have noticed this for the weakening questions -- that the answer choice cannot exist within the stimulus as it is stated.
Does anyone else think like this? I am worried that this thinking may not be as helpful as it has seemed to be so far...
Can we please have access to all answer choices before the correct answer is revealed? It would be so much easier to take notes.
For anyone having trouble on WHY C is correct - C engages directly with the argument. It says "Actually, long term relaxation training is valuable because...".
I felt like B is a beautiful trap answer at first, until I read the last part where it said, "less experienced"- like, who cares? As J would say if they are more or less experienced practitioners, the argument is not about that.
Would be highly valuable to see the answers before going over them