I’m confused how sometimes we can’t just negate what the stimulus tells us and other times we can. Some questions we have to take the stimulus to be true and anything that negates what the stimulus tells us is wrong. Other questions have answers like C that negates what the stimulus tells us, but it’s ok?
This one definitely took me much longer than I had hoped it would, around 4.5 minutes, but nevertheless, I am glad I took the time to really understand my choice of B.
I'm just wondering all the other 4 that do "weaken" the argument aren't they denying the premises though? I thought we were told that denying the premises might not be the way to weaken?
I love the way this curriculum is structured, it's pretty cool to see how two questions ago we had the same exact pattern in the ebola question as in this question. The responses are similar in the sense that they are irrelevant to the argument.
i think i get too overconfident when it comes to understanding the stim, that i start skimming and miss key words like "vitamin content", I chose C solely because I thought the stim does not discuss vitamin content, when it does... gotta work on this ripppp
Tell me why I feel like B could be seen as restating a fact in the argument but it could also be seen as weakening the argument because the speaker agrees irritated foods cause cancer and the B kind just says well anything could cause cancer not just irritated foods. But maybe going off topic from the argument a bit means it is not weakening it??
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.
104 comments
I’m confused how sometimes we can’t just negate what the stimulus tells us and other times we can. Some questions we have to take the stimulus to be true and anything that negates what the stimulus tells us is wrong. Other questions have answers like C that negates what the stimulus tells us, but it’s ok?
This is an interesting question because it breaks the rule of "weaken answers don't attack the premises, they attack the support".
ahhhhh I initially chose E, but in the BR chose B. These are so difficult :/
I genuinely cannot
i've maybe, maybe gotten one of these questions right. Thanks 7sage for not teaching me a thing on these
These LSAT writers are crazy... I got the question right, but looking at the time... Sheesh. We have 1 minute and 18 seconds to answer the question.
BFFR!
Takes me a minute to ready bro, I need at least 3 more minutes to find the answer.
[This comment was deleted.]
This one definitely took me much longer than I had hoped it would, around 4.5 minutes, but nevertheless, I am glad I took the time to really understand my choice of B.
I'm just wondering all the other 4 that do "weaken" the argument aren't they denying the premises though? I thought we were told that denying the premises might not be the way to weaken?
Why do I feel like I touched Goku 4 times
honestly I just keep pushing through bc I'm sure this will all click someday soon rip
I love the way this curriculum is structured, it's pretty cool to see how two questions ago we had the same exact pattern in the ebola question as in this question. The responses are similar in the sense that they are irrelevant to the argument.
i think i have cancer after this question
I really overthought the fuck outta this question
[This comment was deleted.]
Sorry, I feel that A does weaken the argument because it does say that some of the food does have URPS which of my opinion strengthens the argument.
I read this as "eradicated"...
I can never get EXCEPT questions correctly ohmygod #help
Does this irradiation thing actually happen? Like what
I think I'm starting to understand! I know the next drill will punch me in the face for saying that
#feedback Bug: this question did not register my selected choice
i think i get too overconfident when it comes to understanding the stim, that i start skimming and miss key words like "vitamin content", I chose C solely because I thought the stim does not discuss vitamin content, when it does... gotta work on this ripppp
If my clown ass narrows a "weakens EXCEPT" problem to 2 final answers and then completely forgets the existence of the word "except" one more time....
mcanawept2faatcfteotweomt→ ....
Wait im cooking...
Tell me why I feel like B could be seen as restating a fact in the argument but it could also be seen as weakening the argument because the speaker agrees irritated foods cause cancer and the B kind just says well anything could cause cancer not just irritated foods. But maybe going off topic from the argument a bit means it is not weakening it??
I for sure thought it was D.