Saying B is irrelevant is just flat out wrong. The stimulus uses the argument that similar, if not larger, craters did not make the dinosaurs go extinct, so how could the Chhicxulub? B explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub
@epayne17 Can you elaborate on this part -- "explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub." How are you getting this from (B)?
It seems you're reading the idea that crater size depends on asteroid size + impact force as if that means the larger craters referred to in the last sentence had smaller impact force?
If that's right, let's accept that. What's the connection to weakening the argument, even if the larger craters had weaker impact force?
So if the stimulus read that the asteroid caused no extinctions then would AC C weaken the stimulus? Also would the wording of AC C have to be more specific, instead of fossils being discovered it would have to say that it somehow found that there was at least one species that was went extinct because of the asteroid?
@Calin One more thing, for AC D J.Y talks about how if the stimulus read that the asteroid was worldwide but it was some other asteroid then AC D would work. Can we say that just because there is no evidence that it didn't happen? Does this weaken the argument? Also if AC D would have said that we don't know of any other asteroid that struck earth at the same time that wouldn't weaken the argument because even if we don't know something that doesn't mean it didn't happen, correct?
I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.
I always have a different assumption than the one I was supposed to have haha. I thought the correct answer would be about the assumption that meteor strikes DO have worldwide effects (which I have because of all the dinosaur extinction documentaries I watched as a kid).
@JRamirez I overcame this issue by basically putting everything in a box and everything outside of that box doesn’t exist . That means that I focus primarily on first keywords that I’m supposed to look for based on the type of question or answer that I’m looking at. If the keywords don’t do me much for me then I will do process of elimination on the obvious ones that it cannot be and then work my way argument back again
So what kinds of question notes have y'all found are helpful to write down during the blind review? Especially when you haven't changed from your original answer
@jolie.abdo32 I write what my method of finding the answer was, even if it was wrong initially. This is to track my initial thoughts. Then I say why I chose it. Then I go and try to explain (not in great detail) why the other 4 choices are wrong. If my initial answer is wrong and I change my answer in blind review, I explain why I think my initial was wrong and why the new answer is right, keeping my notes on what were my initial thoughts. Then I rate how confident I am with my answer.
@jolie.abdo32 I write out the important premises from the stimmy and the conclusion in my own simplified words. I try to make them as simple and plain as possible without losing any important context. Then I write out why I feel each answer is incorrect and the trick it's trying to play. Some answers are so bad, I just write that they're irrelevant. I also explain why I chose the answer I did. If I'm switching answers, I write where I think I went wrong originally. Then after blind review, if I still got it wrong (which is rare), I create another note stating how and why I got it wrong. And what I could do to avoid a similar mistake in the future.
@jolie.abdo32 I actually have two journals. One is for all the lessons that are detailed, including all the examples written and everything.. the journal I’m currently using I use for the main skeleton structures and main points so that I can reference back when I’m d blind review. Hopefully that makes sense.
@maciascarmen6455 As the other person said, your priority rating is based on whether you personally got it right originally, in blind review, or not at all.
The difficulty rating is based on the average score of other people. The middle score is where 50% of people with that score got it right, the lower score is where only 25% of people with that score got it right, and the high score is where 75% of people with that score got it right.
In this one, 25% of people with a score of 139 got it right, 50% of people with a score of 147 got it right, and 75% of people with a score of 154 got it right.
@maciascarmen6455 hey three or higher is an automatic wind for me. Anything lower as well like I should’ve gotten it right which is just a Hit to my self-esteemif I miss.
Also, in this question and throughout the lesson you have been saying that the answer choice cannot contradict or attack the premise, but doesn't the correct answer do exactly that? Or is it okay to contradict/attack premises that are assumptions?
You should not directly contradict the conclusion. You can and should attack premises.
The conclusion is that the asteroid did not directly cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs.
If the answer had been simply: "The asteroid directly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs." It would have been attacking the conclusion. But it did not. It found a loop hole in the logic of one of the premises.
The author concedes that the impact would have killed all the dinosaurs in the area around the impact, but this would not have been enough to kill most of the dinos in the world. The loophole answer E exploits is to say "What if most of the dinos were in the impact radius of the asteroid." This would mean the impact killed most of the dinosaurs. Weakening the argument.
I can see how this could be interpreted as attacking the conclusion and I guess it is, but indirectly. It is adding new information that undercuts the conclusion, it does not outright say the conclusion is wrong.
What "anythingforselenas" is trying to say is that JY, throughout lessons and PTs', multiple times said do not attack the Goku (do not attack the premises), except for extremely rare cases which you are virtually impossible to encounter. But what we're doing here is attacking the Goku.
I took that recommendation with a grain of salt. Maybe generally we shouldn't attack the Goku, when there's another option that attacks the connection between premises and conclusion instead. However, that's far from being universally true.
I'm having a hard time understanding how certain parts in a stimulus are assumptions while other parts are not. Couldn't we argue that any part of a given stimulus is an assumption? #help
An assumption is something that is not explicitly stated that must be true if the premise is true. So if it is explicitly stated it is not an assumption, It is a premise. If it is supported by all the other premises, it is the conclusion.
So, A does not strengthen the argument because within the stimulus it has already made that concession that many of the dinosaurs were already on the brink of extinction. A essentially is just a repetition of what was already stated in the stimulus, which doesn't strengthen the argument, it is just functionally a reinstatement.
I'm still confused. The stimulus said that the asteroid struck around the time many of the last dinosaur species were becoming extinct. That's different from (A), which states that the vast majority of dinosaur species are known to have gone extinct before the asteroid. To me, (A) increases the likelihood that the asteroid did not cause the extinction due to chronology, whereas the statement in the stimulus doesn't specify that the extinction occurred prior to the asteroid.
I think the operative word here is "last." The stimulus says around the time many of the last dino species were becoming extinct, which implies that before that time, most dino species had already become extinct. "Last" here implies the few remaining, meaning most were not remaining (already extinct).
I was thinking this as well, though in the grammar section he mentions that "most" can actually mean up to 100%. I think its 51-100%. So it likely to be true that all of them were killed. Also In question E, the answer choice says "in or near" which likely means they all died compared to, for example, "in, near, and a few far away" or something.
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.
82 comments
This one makes more sense to me than the previous 2 100%
I got it! Question: does anyone else sit through the explanation even when you get it right?
@SazB42 I do! I sit through the whole thing. Sometimes I put it on 1.5 speed if im getting the concepts but just want to learn what could go wrong
Got it and only 45 sec over. Yay!
idk im so lost T^T
Saying B is irrelevant is just flat out wrong. The stimulus uses the argument that similar, if not larger, craters did not make the dinosaurs go extinct, so how could the Chhicxulub? B explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub
@epayne17 Can you elaborate on this part -- "explains why those other asteroids could not have made them extinct by explaining their force of impact was less than the Chicxulub." How are you getting this from (B)?
It seems you're reading the idea that crater size depends on asteroid size + impact force as if that means the larger craters referred to in the last sentence had smaller impact force?
If that's right, let's accept that. What's the connection to weakening the argument, even if the larger craters had weaker impact force?
BOOM LETS GO W's IN THE CHAT
So if the stimulus read that the asteroid caused no extinctions then would AC C weaken the stimulus? Also would the wording of AC C have to be more specific, instead of fossils being discovered it would have to say that it somehow found that there was at least one species that was went extinct because of the asteroid?
@Calin One more thing, for AC D J.Y talks about how if the stimulus read that the asteroid was worldwide but it was some other asteroid then AC D would work. Can we say that just because there is no evidence that it didn't happen? Does this weaken the argument? Also if AC D would have said that we don't know of any other asteroid that struck earth at the same time that wouldn't weaken the argument because even if we don't know something that doesn't mean it didn't happen, correct?
I do better when I read rather than watch the lesson. Is anyone else experiencing that?
I think the beauty of E is also that it uses the premises against the argument. The argument says that the strike can kill many organisms nearby, but it doesn't impact organisms worldwide beyond that limited range. But if most of the world's dinosaurs live within that limited range (nearby the strike), then yes, the Chicxulub asteroid did cause many of the last dinosaur species to go extinct.
I always have a different assumption than the one I was supposed to have haha. I thought the correct answer would be about the assumption that meteor strikes DO have worldwide effects (which I have because of all the dinosaur extinction documentaries I watched as a kid).
C was so attractive but had to reread the stimulus first before I got to the correct answer--just 1min over (ugh)(
Stupid internal assumptions!
@JRamirez I overcame this issue by basically putting everything in a box and everything outside of that box doesn’t exist . That means that I focus primarily on first keywords that I’m supposed to look for based on the type of question or answer that I’m looking at. If the keywords don’t do me much for me then I will do process of elimination on the obvious ones that it cannot be and then work my way argument back again
#feedback, please fix the blind review! It shows the answer before we can take a second attempt
That party had to end in a bang
So what kinds of question notes have y'all found are helpful to write down during the blind review? Especially when you haven't changed from your original answer
@jolie.abdo32 I write what my method of finding the answer was, even if it was wrong initially. This is to track my initial thoughts. Then I say why I chose it. Then I go and try to explain (not in great detail) why the other 4 choices are wrong. If my initial answer is wrong and I change my answer in blind review, I explain why I think my initial was wrong and why the new answer is right, keeping my notes on what were my initial thoughts. Then I rate how confident I am with my answer.
@jolie.abdo32 I write out the important premises from the stimmy and the conclusion in my own simplified words. I try to make them as simple and plain as possible without losing any important context. Then I write out why I feel each answer is incorrect and the trick it's trying to play. Some answers are so bad, I just write that they're irrelevant. I also explain why I chose the answer I did. If I'm switching answers, I write where I think I went wrong originally. Then after blind review, if I still got it wrong (which is rare), I create another note stating how and why I got it wrong. And what I could do to avoid a similar mistake in the future.
@jolie.abdo32 I actually have two journals. One is for all the lessons that are detailed, including all the examples written and everything.. the journal I’m currently using I use for the main skeleton structures and main points so that I can reference back when I’m d blind review. Hopefully that makes sense.
Any time I get one right I get excited and then see that it is always a low priority question
priority depends on whether u get it right or wrong
@maciascarmen6455 As the other person said, your priority rating is based on whether you personally got it right originally, in blind review, or not at all.
The difficulty rating is based on the average score of other people. The middle score is where 50% of people with that score got it right, the lower score is where only 25% of people with that score got it right, and the high score is where 75% of people with that score got it right.
In this one, 25% of people with a score of 139 got it right, 50% of people with a score of 147 got it right, and 75% of people with a score of 154 got it right.
@maciascarmen6455 hey three or higher is an automatic wind for me. Anything lower as well like I should’ve gotten it right which is just a Hit to my self-esteemif I miss.
Mr. Worldwide
My problem is I think I rush my thinking a bit too much, I need to slow down and take all the information in….
Was between D AND E AND CHOSE D :(
Also, in this question and throughout the lesson you have been saying that the answer choice cannot contradict or attack the premise, but doesn't the correct answer do exactly that? Or is it okay to contradict/attack premises that are assumptions?
You should not directly contradict the conclusion. You can and should attack premises.
The conclusion is that the asteroid did not directly cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs.
If the answer had been simply: "The asteroid directly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs." It would have been attacking the conclusion. But it did not. It found a loop hole in the logic of one of the premises.
The author concedes that the impact would have killed all the dinosaurs in the area around the impact, but this would not have been enough to kill most of the dinos in the world. The loophole answer E exploits is to say "What if most of the dinos were in the impact radius of the asteroid." This would mean the impact killed most of the dinosaurs. Weakening the argument.
I can see how this could be interpreted as attacking the conclusion and I guess it is, but indirectly. It is adding new information that undercuts the conclusion, it does not outright say the conclusion is wrong.
What "anythingforselenas" is trying to say is that JY, throughout lessons and PTs', multiple times said do not attack the Goku (do not attack the premises), except for extremely rare cases which you are virtually impossible to encounter. But what we're doing here is attacking the Goku.
I took that recommendation with a grain of salt. Maybe generally we shouldn't attack the Goku, when there's another option that attacks the connection between premises and conclusion instead. However, that's far from being universally true.
I'm having a hard time understanding how certain parts in a stimulus are assumptions while other parts are not. Couldn't we argue that any part of a given stimulus is an assumption? #help
An assumption is something that is not explicitly stated that must be true if the premise is true. So if it is explicitly stated it is not an assumption, It is a premise. If it is supported by all the other premises, it is the conclusion.
#help I understand why (A) is not the correct answer but does anyone know why it doesn't strengthen the argument?
So, A does not strengthen the argument because within the stimulus it has already made that concession that many of the dinosaurs were already on the brink of extinction. A essentially is just a repetition of what was already stated in the stimulus, which doesn't strengthen the argument, it is just functionally a reinstatement.
I'm still confused. The stimulus said that the asteroid struck around the time many of the last dinosaur species were becoming extinct. That's different from (A), which states that the vast majority of dinosaur species are known to have gone extinct before the asteroid. To me, (A) increases the likelihood that the asteroid did not cause the extinction due to chronology, whereas the statement in the stimulus doesn't specify that the extinction occurred prior to the asteroid.
I think the operative word here is "last." The stimulus says around the time many of the last dino species were becoming extinct, which implies that before that time, most dino species had already become extinct. "Last" here implies the few remaining, meaning most were not remaining (already extinct).
But it's true that it's not perfect.
Am I correct in thinking that this question basically comes down entirely to the use of "most?"
I was thinking this as well, though in the grammar section he mentions that "most" can actually mean up to 100%. I think its 51-100%. So it likely to be true that all of them were killed. Also In question E, the answer choice says "in or near" which likely means they all died compared to, for example, "in, near, and a few far away" or something.
"Immediately"
Does this mean ASAP, hours, days, weeks? In my mind, the dinosaurs could have migrated away from the area.
It means ASAP. They were there at the same time as the asteroid.
@rdsilva1188 In what world does immediately mean weeks?
Had it narrowed down to C and E. Went with E. C just did not feel quite correct.