the very second that you see the word "except" or "least" in the qs stem it is super helpful to highlight that word using the highlighter function. that way you're less likely to miss it when going through the answer choices.
What helped me get the right answer here was the fact that the stimulus says "hiccups experienced by many..." Many, as we know from previous lessons, means not all. Thus, the correct answer choice is almost just restating this premise - therefore giving us our correct answer, as it is not weakening the argument by simply restating one of its premises.
Something that I've had to repeatedly train myself to do is to stop thinking of "All of the following weaken EXCEPT" questions as "Strengthen" questions.
I've missed many questions because my head automatically goes,"OK if they all weaken except the correct answer, let me just think of it as a strengthen question," which is not accurate nor always valid. Just because it doesn't weaken the argument, it doesn't mean it strengthens the argument. Sometimes it just means it has no real affect on the argument one way or the other.
This was the first question in which I remembered to not think of it as a strengthen question, and I got it correct.
I usually answer these types of questions by looking for the one answer that strengthens, rather than weakens, but this is one of those times where I just needed to look for the answer than simply had no bearing on the argument at all lol
I don't think this is a great strategy; remember, the negation of weaken is NOT weaken (this includes but is not exclusively strengthen). It's a good exercise to really understand this for all questions!
I think another way you could probably see how B wouldn't weaken the argument is because B just restates what is already said in the argument. In the author's support, he mentions that hiccups were experienced by many (so it accounts that not all had those symptoms) victims of the Ebola virus which is what B is saying. B says that not all victims of Ebola had hiccups. Hope this logic helps!
The reason why I picked B is because it's consistent with what the author said in stimulus that "hiccups experienced by MANY victims" which translates roughly to a some relationship. Therefore, B just restates part of the stimulus. Is this a reasonable explanation?
no, "not all" essentially refers to "some" still, so the statement C can be read as "some of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups." which strengthens the argument
The cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430 B.C. can finally be identified. Accounts of the epidemic mention the hiccups experienced by many victims, a symptom of no known disease except that caused by the recently discovered Ebola virus. Moreover, other symptoms of the disease caused by the Ebola virus are mentioned in the accounts of the Athenian epidemic.
B) Not all of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups.
I chose B because it literally restates a premise (the one I bolded) but used different words. That doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument it just restates the premise. Every other choice either slightly or greatly weakened the argument, B does nothing, nada, zilch!
I so recommend taking the few extra seconds to highlight the word "except" it really grabs your attention that way and you're less likely to forget what you're doing
it took me 8 min but i clocked the heck out of that question. 😝😝 i have the worst headache and sore throat but the grind doesn't stop. LETS GO GUYS !!!!!
Dropping my thought-process, in case it helps anyone:
For victims of a disease, the passage suggests the following conditional: hiccups → Ebola (hiccups is a symptom of Ebola only, not any other disease). Importantly, this does not mean Ebola → hiccups — that would flip sufficiency and necessity, which is a classic LSAT trap.
The passage also reinforces this by saying many — not all — epidemic victims experienced hiccups. So hiccups aren't a necessary symptom; like with any disease, it's simply one symptom that some victims may experience.
That's exactly why (B) is consistent with the passage: if hiccups aren't a necessary condition for Ebola, it makes perfect sense that some people during the epidemic didn't experience them. No contradiction there.
As for the other answer choices — if you take each one as true and work with only what the passage gives you, they each deepen the gap in the argument rather than help close it. A good way to check: does this answer choice make the conclusion easier or harder to reach? For (B), it doesn't strengthen — but it doesn't need to. All that matters here is that it doesn't weaken, and it doesn't (merely consistent with). For the others, the gap between the premises and conclusion becomes harder to close.
To add on, the premises says "hiccups experienced by many victims." "Many" can mean some/not all, so B) seems to support the premises by reaffirming it, or at the very least doesn't weaken whatsoever.
The second I saw the word EXCEPT I wrote down on my scribble paper "WHICH STRENGTHENS OR DOES NOTHING" and that honestly helped so much to reframe my mind to look for whatever one was kinda irrelevant
thats very helpful! I personally just stop reading up to the except. Once I see except I just look for 4 answers that weakens the stimulus or 4 answers that strengthens the stimulus for strengthening question. This helps me a lot too!
#feedback You still should have explained what R-not (looked it up and it's "r-naught") means. You have explained multiple times already that the LSAT writers specifically explain complex concepts in the stimuli because they can't expect everyone to know what it means. Why would you presume everyone here trying to learn for the LSAT would know what a very specific concept means?
Another way (B) does not weaken the argument: The stimulus says "many victims experienced hiccups" this does not imply that ALL victims experienced hiccups as a symptom. (B) is merely consistent with this and therefore cannot weaken the argument since the argument already stated that.
145 comments
straight up not having a good time right now
I can't do these WSE questions its up to jesus now
For some reason whenever a question has "EXCEPT" I always fuck up. Either I don't see it or I still get tripped up anyway.
I knew B was merely consistent, but for some reason I didn't select it because I was in the wrong mindset or something my head is fucked.
the very second that you see the word "except" or "least" in the qs stem it is super helpful to highlight that word using the highlighter function. that way you're less likely to miss it when going through the answer choices.
I sometimes forget halfway through the answer choices that we're dealing with an EXCEPT question and pick the wrong answer because it works. RIP
omg SAMEE
yikes
What helped me get the right answer here was the fact that the stimulus says "hiccups experienced by many..." Many, as we know from previous lessons, means not all. Thus, the correct answer choice is almost just restating this premise - therefore giving us our correct answer, as it is not weakening the argument by simply restating one of its premises.
Something that I've had to repeatedly train myself to do is to stop thinking of "All of the following weaken EXCEPT" questions as "Strengthen" questions.
I've missed many questions because my head automatically goes,"OK if they all weaken except the correct answer, let me just think of it as a strengthen question," which is not accurate nor always valid. Just because it doesn't weaken the argument, it doesn't mean it strengthens the argument. Sometimes it just means it has no real affect on the argument one way or the other.
This was the first question in which I remembered to not think of it as a strengthen question, and I got it correct.
@weathersr1 you're right, the best way to think about this:
WEAKEN EXCEPT = STRENGTHEN or DO NOTHING FOR THE ARGUMENT
I usually answer these types of questions by looking for the one answer that strengthens, rather than weakens, but this is one of those times where I just needed to look for the answer than simply had no bearing on the argument at all lol
I don't think this is a great strategy; remember, the negation of weaken is NOT weaken (this includes but is not exclusively strengthen). It's a good exercise to really understand this for all questions!
I think another way you could probably see how B wouldn't weaken the argument is because B just restates what is already said in the argument. In the author's support, he mentions that hiccups were experienced by many (so it accounts that not all had those symptoms) victims of the Ebola virus which is what B is saying. B says that not all victims of Ebola had hiccups. Hope this logic helps!
Yes that's what I thought as well!
this completely lost me. i dont think i can get better at these
@meepmeep no same im pissed
The reason why I picked B is because it's consistent with what the author said in stimulus that "hiccups experienced by MANY victims" which translates roughly to a some relationship. Therefore, B just restates part of the stimulus. Is this a reasonable explanation?
no, "not all" essentially refers to "some" still, so the statement C can be read as "some of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups." which strengthens the argument
That's the same reason why I choose B. Many is not must, but it's closer to some. So, I choice B because it restated what was stated in the stimulus.
The cause of the epidemic that devastated Athens in 430 B.C. can finally be identified. Accounts of the epidemic mention the hiccups experienced by many victims, a symptom of no known disease except that caused by the recently discovered Ebola virus. Moreover, other symptoms of the disease caused by the Ebola virus are mentioned in the accounts of the Athenian epidemic.
B) Not all of those who are victims of the Ebola virus are afflicted with hiccups.
Did JY just assume I know what "R naught" is? Because I don't...
the except questions mess me up so bad
You could try to read "weaken, except" as strengthen and "strengthen, except" as weaken. Essentially the same premise.
I so recommend taking the few extra seconds to highlight the word "except" it really grabs your attention that way and you're less likely to forget what you're doing
ur right, ty!
it took me 8 min but i clocked the heck out of that question. 😝😝 i have the worst headache and sore throat but the grind doesn't stop. LETS GO GUYS !!!!!
I wish I could say any of this is making sense
same
Dropping my thought-process, in case it helps anyone:
For victims of a disease, the passage suggests the following conditional: hiccups → Ebola (hiccups is a symptom of Ebola only, not any other disease). Importantly, this does not mean Ebola → hiccups — that would flip sufficiency and necessity, which is a classic LSAT trap.
The passage also reinforces this by saying many — not all — epidemic victims experienced hiccups. So hiccups aren't a necessary symptom; like with any disease, it's simply one symptom that some victims may experience.
That's exactly why (B) is consistent with the passage: if hiccups aren't a necessary condition for Ebola, it makes perfect sense that some people during the epidemic didn't experience them. No contradiction there.
As for the other answer choices — if you take each one as true and work with only what the passage gives you, they each deepen the gap in the argument rather than help close it. A good way to check: does this answer choice make the conclusion easier or harder to reach? For (B), it doesn't strengthen — but it doesn't need to. All that matters here is that it doesn't weaken, and it doesn't (merely consistent with). For the others, the gap between the premises and conclusion becomes harder to close.
Hope this helps!
This one was tricky but it is so clear once you see the word "many" which is = to "some" which is "not all" in B AGH
That's exactly how I got to the right answer too!
To add on, the premises says "hiccups experienced by many victims." "Many" can mean some/not all, so B) seems to support the premises by reaffirming it, or at the very least doesn't weaken whatsoever.
The second I saw the word EXCEPT I wrote down on my scribble paper "WHICH STRENGTHENS OR DOES NOTHING" and that honestly helped so much to reframe my mind to look for whatever one was kinda irrelevant
thats very helpful! I personally just stop reading up to the except. Once I see except I just look for 4 answers that weakens the stimulus or 4 answers that strengthens the stimulus for strengthening question. This helps me a lot too!
I'm just now catching on to this as well. I should definitely start taking notes as I go
For those struggling, remember that "not all" means "some", and some could just be 2 people which doesn't weaken this argument.
@KhushyMandania thank you for saying this that actually helped me spot B right away after struggling in BR!!
GOD I need to remember that with EXCEPT questions it's OPPOSITE DAY
i know!! i glossed over the word "except" too :(
Same :( :( :(
#feedback You still should have explained what R-not (looked it up and it's "r-naught") means. You have explained multiple times already that the LSAT writers specifically explain complex concepts in the stimuli because they can't expect everyone to know what it means. Why would you presume everyone here trying to learn for the LSAT would know what a very specific concept means?
Another way (B) does not weaken the argument: The stimulus says "many victims experienced hiccups" this does not imply that ALL victims experienced hiccups as a symptom. (B) is merely consistent with this and therefore cannot weaken the argument since the argument already stated that.
I overlooked the word EXCEPT.
I’ll just take the L for this one. They all looked too weak— should’ve did the spectrum