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!
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?
Isn't B wrong because it would support the argument? I don't see how it is bait... The timeframes line up, even if it could be referring to earlier times.
could someone explain the "priority" category in the answer key? Some questions are marked as high question difficulty but low priority. Other questions are lower in question difficulty but high priority. wouldn't the high priority questions always be the hardest ones? also what does "V." stand for?
what does priority even mean? are they scored differently? or are we just supposed to pay attention to them because they're hard?
I feel like I missed a lesson on answer key notations because I also don't know what "Psg/Game/S Difficulty" means.
#help why is it not an assumption that worms are a form of multicellular animal life? that seemed like the clearest gap in the argument to me, so i looked for an answer that attacked that assumption and found it in E. you even said we need to "make that connection" (essentially just assume that it's true)... but what if that connection (assumption) was disproven? would that not weaken the argument?
It's wrong for other reasons. But I also eliminated A since it discusses how precisely they can date a piece of 'sandstone,' but the stimulus only talks about the age of the 'marks' in the sandstone.
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 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 think another thing wrong with A is that the premise talks about what year the marks were made in the sandstone, not the age of the sandstone itself. Choice A specifically refers to the age of the sandstone.
read too quickly somehow answered it as if it were a strengthen question. got the right answer in the alternative strengthen question universe. a win is a win. gotta be more careful
I was on C before D, but since I felt the arguer was arguing the marks were a result of geological processes and D spoke against the geological processes I went with D.
Another reason why I thought A was wrong was because of the word "precise." Let's say the scientists used a rough estimate instead and found that the sandstone dated 100 million years before the existence of multicellular animal life. This would still support the conclusion. My main point: the scientist could have had the most exact date or the least exact date and come to the same conclusion.
C can also be wrong because the stimulus accounts for it, it states that the tracks were from BEFORE multicellular lifeforms formed, meaning that even if it is true that there were other early life forms whose tracks resembled worms, that fact is irrelevant as the tracks were formed before these lifeforms exist, we would have to assume that the lifeforms were multicellular but that is a reasonable assumption in my opinion as it is kinda impossible for a unicellular organism to make a track that resembles that of a worm
how can you assume though, that the piece of sandstone was found in it's original location? we're talking billions of years... could it not have feasibly moved?
0
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.
57 comments
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!
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?
Worm tracks? The Lisan al-Gaib must be near
I just want to punch myself in the face
got the last few questions incorrect. got this one correct. life is worth living again.
Isn't B wrong because it would support the argument? I don't see how it is bait... The timeframes line up, even if it could be referring to earlier times.
worm tracks... sandstone... SHAI-HULUD
could someone explain the "priority" category in the answer key? Some questions are marked as high question difficulty but low priority. Other questions are lower in question difficulty but high priority. wouldn't the high priority questions always be the hardest ones? also what does "V." stand for?
what does priority even mean? are they scored differently? or are we just supposed to pay attention to them because they're hard?
I feel like I missed a lesson on answer key notations because I also don't know what "Psg/Game/S Difficulty" means.
#help why is it not an assumption that worms are a form of multicellular animal life? that seemed like the clearest gap in the argument to me, so i looked for an answer that attacked that assumption and found it in E. you even said we need to "make that connection" (essentially just assume that it's true)... but what if that connection (assumption) was disproven? would that not weaken the argument?
It's wrong for other reasons. But I also eliminated A since it discusses how precisely they can date a piece of 'sandstone,' but the stimulus only talks about the age of the 'marks' in the sandstone.
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 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
In strengthen/weaken questions is the conclusion always a hypothesis?
C, D, E all seem good.. but D puts the nail in the coffin. It removes all doubt.
Ugh i was torn between C and D, I was leaning towards D. but then C seemed more relevant so I chose the trap answer :(
I think another thing wrong with A is that the premise talks about what year the marks were made in the sandstone, not the age of the sandstone itself. Choice A specifically refers to the age of the sandstone.
read too quickly somehow answered it as if it were a strengthen question. got the right answer in the alternative strengthen question universe. a win is a win. gotta be more careful
I was on C before D, but since I felt the arguer was arguing the marks were a result of geological processes and D spoke against the geological processes I went with D.
I am a fish and I took the bait😔
crying in the club bc of these questions ):
Another reason why I thought A was wrong was because of the word "precise." Let's say the scientists used a rough estimate instead and found that the sandstone dated 100 million years before the existence of multicellular animal life. This would still support the conclusion. My main point: the scientist could have had the most exact date or the least exact date and come to the same conclusion.
To assume or not to assume. that is the question
finally I get an answer correct - god knew if I saw another red mark I would cry
C can also be wrong because the stimulus accounts for it, it states that the tracks were from BEFORE multicellular lifeforms formed, meaning that even if it is true that there were other early life forms whose tracks resembled worms, that fact is irrelevant as the tracks were formed before these lifeforms exist, we would have to assume that the lifeforms were multicellular but that is a reasonable assumption in my opinion as it is kinda impossible for a unicellular organism to make a track that resembles that of a worm
how can you assume though, that the piece of sandstone was found in it's original location? we're talking billions of years... could it not have feasibly moved?