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'm still not fully understanding how the wording of E weakens the argument. As someone else pointed out, I feel like it's a very reasonable assumption to say that even if the diseases were the EXACT SAME from back then to modern day, the epidemics would be much shorter now due to sanitation, medicine, and all that good stuff. Maybe I'm misinterpreting how viruses work, but again, I feel that's a highly reasonable assumption of why they COULD be the same, just under different conditions, which would mean that it doesn't weaken the argument. I sort of understand how B could also be consistent with and not necessarily weaken the argument, but don't understand why E weakens it.
at this point i dont see any patterns in identifying the right answer choice.
i dont know if its cause the lessons are not working for me or if its because the questions are actually hard.
i chose D thinking, how does this weaken? it doesnt do anything.
I didnt chose B because i translated that as "some victims of Ebola virus are NOT afflicted with hiccups" and that aligns with the stimulus saying "many victims of ebola mention hiccups"
if it's true that SOME mention hiccups, then SOME can NOT mention hiccups too.
correct me if my last statement is a very wrong interpretation of "some"
B is correct because it tells us something we already know. Remember to imagine the answer choices as a verbal response to the argument. How goofy would it be for the opposition to argue, "Well, some people didn't have hiccups." After we just said that some people do experience them and X virus is the only known virus to cause that symptom
we were told with the Goku analogy that the answer choices in weaken questions should be weakening the support that flows from premise to conclusion, rather than the premises or conclusion itself in the vast majority of cases. Would this be a case where the answer choices are weakening the conclusion directly? for example, the stimulus doesn't say anything about the ebola virus's host animals, but answer c is still considered to be weakening.
I had such a big problem with E because the idea that an epidemic centuries ago with no sanitation, germ theory, etc. would have lasted longer than succeeding epidemics literally does not weaken the conclusion at all. That is pointing to outside factors of public health & infrastructure it has nothing to do with the disease itself.
A huge problem with C is that it requires either (i) making an assumption or (ii) knowledge about diseases. I have no background in biology or in any related field about diseases. But what my common sense tells me is that for this argument to work (weaken), I have to assume that Ebola spreads only from an animal to human, not from human to human. Even if I were to take for granted that yes, a rat is a host animal, does it preclude that it can, first, spread from a rat to a human elsewhere, and then that human spreads it further Athenians?
The problem, indeed, could be fixed by knowledge in biology. Which is unreasonable to expect from a common person. There are variety of diseases. Which makes you make the assumption.
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?
#feedback i keep getting confused when it says that the question will be a weaken but they are actually looking for anything that does the complete opposite. Have to look closer at the question stem.
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 thought both A and B didn't weaken the argument because I thought "just because the symptoms weren't documented doesn't mean they weren't there." Now I realized I brushed over the word "many". That definitely weakens the argument a little, for sure more than B.
#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?
I chose B (among other reasons) because of the language. B says "not all" which is just consistent with what the stimulus says: "hiccups experienced by many victims." If the stimulus had said "all victims" it would be a different story, but "many" doesn't preclude "not all." They could both be interpreted to mean most or some, so B didn't do anything to the argument.
After missing countless questions because I missed an 'EXCEPT' or misinterpreted strengthening or weakening, I finally started highlighting the key words in the question stem before I even read the stimulus. And it has been SO helpful in remembering what I'm supposed to do.
This is my worst section yet. I was doing so good up until the weaken questions :(
7
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.
115 comments
I can't do these WSE questions its up to jesus now
this completely lost me. i dont think i can get better at these
I’ll just take the L for this one. They all looked too weak— should’ve did the spectrum
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.
Answer choice C cooked me
I'm still not fully understanding how the wording of E weakens the argument. As someone else pointed out, I feel like it's a very reasonable assumption to say that even if the diseases were the EXACT SAME from back then to modern day, the epidemics would be much shorter now due to sanitation, medicine, and all that good stuff. Maybe I'm misinterpreting how viruses work, but again, I feel that's a highly reasonable assumption of why they COULD be the same, just under different conditions, which would mean that it doesn't weaken the argument. I sort of understand how B could also be consistent with and not necessarily weaken the argument, but don't understand why E weakens it.
Don’t forget, inconsistent data weakens an argument, bc it’s not corroborating!
at this point i dont see any patterns in identifying the right answer choice.
i dont know if its cause the lessons are not working for me or if its because the questions are actually hard.
i chose D thinking, how does this weaken? it doesnt do anything.
I didnt chose B because i translated that as "some victims of Ebola virus are NOT afflicted with hiccups" and that aligns with the stimulus saying "many victims of ebola mention hiccups"
if it's true that SOME mention hiccups, then SOME can NOT mention hiccups too.
correct me if my last statement is a very wrong interpretation of "some"
Many = Some
B is correct because it tells us something we already know. Remember to imagine the answer choices as a verbal response to the argument. How goofy would it be for the opposition to argue, "Well, some people didn't have hiccups." After we just said that some people do experience them and X virus is the only known virus to cause that symptom
we were told with the Goku analogy that the answer choices in weaken questions should be weakening the support that flows from premise to conclusion, rather than the premises or conclusion itself in the vast majority of cases. Would this be a case where the answer choices are weakening the conclusion directly? for example, the stimulus doesn't say anything about the ebola virus's host animals, but answer c is still considered to be weakening.
Sorry this question isn't relevant here but please can someone guide me as to how i can print PTs so i can get used to in person tests?
I had such a big problem with E because the idea that an epidemic centuries ago with no sanitation, germ theory, etc. would have lasted longer than succeeding epidemics literally does not weaken the conclusion at all. That is pointing to outside factors of public health & infrastructure it has nothing to do with the disease itself.
A huge problem with C is that it requires either (i) making an assumption or (ii) knowledge about diseases. I have no background in biology or in any related field about diseases. But what my common sense tells me is that for this argument to work (weaken), I have to assume that Ebola spreads only from an animal to human, not from human to human. Even if I were to take for granted that yes, a rat is a host animal, does it preclude that it can, first, spread from a rat to a human elsewhere, and then that human spreads it further Athenians?
The problem, indeed, could be fixed by knowledge in biology. Which is unreasonable to expect from a common person. There are variety of diseases. Which makes you make the assumption.
I did choose B though.
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?
#feedback i keep getting confused when it says that the question will be a weaken but they are actually looking for anything that does the complete opposite. Have to look closer at the question stem.
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 thought both A and B didn't weaken the argument because I thought "just because the symptoms weren't documented doesn't mean they weren't there." Now I realized I brushed over the word "many". That definitely weakens the argument a little, for sure more than B.
These questions can be quite tricky, but I got this one right!
GOD I need to remember that with EXCEPT questions it's OPPOSITE DAY
I am always getting "low priority" questions correct and the "high priority" ones false. THIS IS SO ANNOYING.
Any tips for weakening and strengthening questions, was doing great with all the other question types until I reached these!
#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?
I chose B (among other reasons) because of the language. B says "not all" which is just consistent with what the stimulus says: "hiccups experienced by many victims." If the stimulus had said "all victims" it would be a different story, but "many" doesn't preclude "not all." They could both be interpreted to mean most or some, so B didn't do anything to the argument.
After missing countless questions because I missed an 'EXCEPT' or misinterpreted strengthening or weakening, I finally started highlighting the key words in the question stem before I even read the stimulus. And it has been SO helpful in remembering what I'm supposed to do.
This is my worst section yet. I was doing so good up until the weaken questions :(