I'm confused as to why we're sometimes instructed to pick answer choices that directly attack the conclusion-hypothesis and then at other times instructed to pick answer choices that merely deny or support an alternative conclusion-hypothesis. What are the signifiers for when to implement these strategies?
I have a bad habit of mis-reading questions where I don't acknowledge a keyword in an answer choice that makes or breaks the question. It has happened on quite a lot of questions, and when I look back, I'm not sure why I did not see the obvious keyword that made a question right or wrong.
I spent 3 minutes on this question, almost eliminating D because I did not see the word "not" after "could not" and thought that this was a very dumb answer choice. It was only re-reading it after 2 minutes when the other ACs didn't make sense is when I caught the "not."
@nycxchi Yes 100%! I find it helps to do outside reading and make sure to consciously read every word and not skim. If you get into the habit outside of LSAT questions then you're less likely to do it in studying.
I remember in earlier lessons J.Y. bringing up the point that just because a group of scientists or specialists believe a certain theory does not necessarily mean that it should be taken as truth. Unless the answer choice makes the extra effort to say correctly believes.
I understand that the scientists specifically having knowledge of early animal life gives them more credibility, but I am struggling with coming to terms with how that immediately means we can assume their belief is true. Especially when it says most of the subset of scientists believe. Implying there is some internal debate on the matter.
These two issues allowed me to immediately disqualify E. I hope this reasoning doesn't get me into trouble later.
I went with C instead of D because I thought just because the sandstone was found in that location, that doesn't mean that it is the location where it necessarily originated. What if it was moved there and thats just where someone else found it. But then again I am not familiar with sandstone. And with C you have to make more assumptions than you do with D
I chose E in attempts to deny the assumption of the geologists "earliest known traces of multicellular animal life."
What if worms existed 500 million years earlier than other multicellular animals? It sounds like E gives an explanation for why worms could have existed for example, 600+ million years prior, because "evidence of their earliest existence is scarce" (due to soft tissue).
Doesn't this weaken the conclusion that claims worms could not have left the tracks?
@AOnifade I chose the same but I think you have to take it as true that multicellular organisms only started to exist half a billion years after the sandstone. So, even if it was the first multicellular organism, it still would be one of the first known ones, which puts it 500 million years after the sandstones. You would have to make the assumption that something we do not know has to be true in order for E to weaken the argument.
@TeklaCo Same, but then I realized that D dismantles the argument almost completely while C still had the potential for the argument to be true (more assumptions)
A got me but I also didn't read through the rest. BR I got it right. D almost looked wrong because the margin of being correct felt so slight. It's quite an open-ended feeling, not quite zero chance.
I appreciate the deep dive into AC (B). I immediately ruled it out because I believed it strengthened the argument, so there's a strong chance I would have considered that answer had the question stem asked us to strengthen the argument. Definitely emphasized the importance of attention to wording and really analyzing each AC as it relates to the stimulus!
#help While I chose the correct answer D because it denied the assumption behind the conclusion, I had doubts about picking it as it did not affect the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. I thought that this relationship is the main target of these types of questions. Could someone help me and explain this please?
i kind of thought through this by thinking about the premise-conclusion relationship as "it can't be the worms and it had to be the geological processes bc the worms allegedly did not exist during this time." answer d tells us that it cannot be the geological processes; it is just not possible. this knocks our conclusion out of the park. it also kind of relates to the classic flaw where a lack of proof is taken as a proof that something doesn't exist; just bc there is no evidence regarding the worms right now, does not mean the worms didn't exist. the worms could've existed and made those tracks and there's a chance we just don't have proof! i hope this helps a bit!!!
70 comments
shabbalabba dingdong
@handsome165 Thank you for your wise words of inspiration oh great one XD
I am a fish and I took the bait😔
I FINALLY GOT ONE FUCKING RIGHT HELL YES
I just want to punch myself in the face
finally I get an answer correct - god knew if I saw another red mark I would cry
still waiting to do that :(
got the last few questions incorrect. got this one correct. life is worth living again.
crying in the club bc of these questions ):
real
I'm confused as to why we're sometimes instructed to pick answer choices that directly attack the conclusion-hypothesis and then at other times instructed to pick answer choices that merely deny or support an alternative conclusion-hypothesis. What are the signifiers for when to implement these strategies?
I had the same confusion!
To assume or not to assume. that is the question
I have a bad habit of mis-reading questions where I don't acknowledge a keyword in an answer choice that makes or breaks the question. It has happened on quite a lot of questions, and when I look back, I'm not sure why I did not see the obvious keyword that made a question right or wrong.
I spent 3 minutes on this question, almost eliminating D because I did not see the word "not" after "could not" and thought that this was a very dumb answer choice. It was only re-reading it after 2 minutes when the other ACs didn't make sense is when I caught the "not."
Anyone else struggling with this?
@nycxchi Yes 100%! I find it helps to do outside reading and make sure to consciously read every word and not skim. If you get into the habit outside of LSAT questions then you're less likely to do it in studying.
I remember in earlier lessons J.Y. bringing up the point that just because a group of scientists or specialists believe a certain theory does not necessarily mean that it should be taken as truth. Unless the answer choice makes the extra effort to say correctly believes.
I understand that the scientists specifically having knowledge of early animal life gives them more credibility, but I am struggling with coming to terms with how that immediately means we can assume their belief is true. Especially when it says most of the subset of scientists believe. Implying there is some internal debate on the matter.
These two issues allowed me to immediately disqualify E. I hope this reasoning doesn't get me into trouble later.
I had the same reasoning as you!
weakening questions confuse me
I keep telling myself
"remember weakening questions you are trying to throw off the conclusion"
anything that supports the conclusion i eliminate right away.
I hope this helps.
Worm tracks? The Lisan al-Gaib must be near
worm tracks... sandstone... SHAI-HULUD
damn, really thought it was E
Sameeeee
I think every question I have had the right answer but then changed it because my brain has last minute thoughts smh.....
I went with C instead of D because I thought just because the sandstone was found in that location, that doesn't mean that it is the location where it necessarily originated. What if it was moved there and thats just where someone else found it. But then again I am not familiar with sandstone. And with C you have to make more assumptions than you do with D
choosing C is essentially denying something in the context, not the conclusion being made which is what D denies
I made the same mistake.
I chose E in attempts to deny the assumption of the geologists "earliest known traces of multicellular animal life."
What if worms existed 500 million years earlier than other multicellular animals? It sounds like E gives an explanation for why worms could have existed for example, 600+ million years prior, because "evidence of their earliest existence is scarce" (due to soft tissue).
Doesn't this weaken the conclusion that claims worms could not have left the tracks?
#help
@AOnifade I chose the same but I think you have to take it as true that multicellular organisms only started to exist half a billion years after the sandstone. So, even if it was the first multicellular organism, it still would be one of the first known ones, which puts it 500 million years after the sandstones. You would have to make the assumption that something we do not know has to be true in order for E to weaken the argument.
I miss read answer choice D... I must force myself to fully understand each components of each sentence before I jump to answering the question
I find myself doing that for some questions becoming quite a habitat now, and need to stop and slow down at reading
I got it almost tripped with C lol
@TeklaCo Same, but then I realized that D dismantles the argument almost completely while C still had the potential for the argument to be true (more assumptions)
My issue is I love to contradict the premises. I forget to accept the premises as true
A got me but I also didn't read through the rest. BR I got it right. D almost looked wrong because the margin of being correct felt so slight. It's quite an open-ended feeling, not quite zero chance.
I appreciate the deep dive into AC (B). I immediately ruled it out because I believed it strengthened the argument, so there's a strong chance I would have considered that answer had the question stem asked us to strengthen the argument. Definitely emphasized the importance of attention to wording and really analyzing each AC as it relates to the stimulus!
#help While I chose the correct answer D because it denied the assumption behind the conclusion, I had doubts about picking it as it did not affect the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. I thought that this relationship is the main target of these types of questions. Could someone help me and explain this please?
i kind of thought through this by thinking about the premise-conclusion relationship as "it can't be the worms and it had to be the geological processes bc the worms allegedly did not exist during this time." answer d tells us that it cannot be the geological processes; it is just not possible. this knocks our conclusion out of the park. it also kind of relates to the classic flaw where a lack of proof is taken as a proof that something doesn't exist; just bc there is no evidence regarding the worms right now, does not mean the worms didn't exist. the worms could've existed and made those tracks and there's a chance we just don't have proof! i hope this helps a bit!!!
On Strengthen and Weaken questions, your target is almost always the conclusion.