Guys. I keep getting down to two answers with these weaken/strengthen questions and then choosing the wrong answer. Sure enough, in my Blind Review I get the 100%. I feel like I am switching the answers for some reason? I don't know if anyone else is experiencing something similar. #frustrated
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?
@DrewBetts I thought about this too. My understanding of it is that there's 1) Questions that ask to identify what strengthens/weakens MOST and 2) questions that ask to identify the "EXCEPT".
You generally shouldn't go for the negation of a premise when the question is asking you to pick the answer that most supports or denies something (because its likely not doing much to support/deny) but when it's an EXCEPT question, its asking you to identify the odd one out. The wrong options don't have to all weaken/strengthen the argument in the best way.
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?
A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food
this answer choice is connected to Premise 3 which states irradiation->URP-> health problem+ cancer
we aren't denying the premise of URP's causing health problems and cancer. The answer choice tells us that the URP that shows up from irradiating our food rarely shows up in the food, it still shows up when we irradiate but it doesn't matter cuz we aren't eating it. So it weakens the claim that we need to avoid irradiated food.
C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.
P2 says irradiation CAN reduce the vit content of fresh foods leaving behind gunk). Never says it always does but that it CAN. That one little word changes ALOT on this damn test. For example whenever I turn on my stove it CAN blow up my house and DOES blow up my house are 2 completely different things.
But now the answer choice is saying in a study rads doesnt affect the food. We know it CAN but in this particular study it showed it DOESNT. Which weakens the claim that we should avoid avoid irradiated food.
D) This is a comparative statement turns out the bad chems in irradiated food (while still being bad for human consumption) arent as numerous as the bad chems in normal food. Which weakens for sure.
E) Just says oh the cancer scare we got from the P3 isnt a major cause for cancer. People that eat irradiated food arent more at risk than people that eat normal food. We just assumed that OMG theres URP's that come from the irradiation process we're all going to die of cancer but in truth it doesnt raise our risk of cancer more than someone who eates normal food.
The problem I originally had was I attributed my own thoughts and assumptions of the premises to be true and was too in my own head . Like OMG irradiation can kill vit content and leaves behind gunk , it must always happen every time. Ahhhh irradiation leaves behind URPS that will give me cancer. The URP must be on my food after being irradiated every time!!!!!! But these are assumptions and knee jerk reactions to the premise.
My suggestion is treat the premises like News headlines they mean what they say but somewhere along the lines theres some BS you have to wade through to get to the truth
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.
"Third, irradiation spawns URPs that cause serious health problems, including cancer". This sentence implies that some foods will have URPs. However, the answer is clarifying that it is very unlikely that the foods will have URPs.
my trick(doesnt work for everyone): but when the question asks for an except, we automatically assume its for the inverse (strenghtens, excpet or ect). BUT, the question stem does not directly ask you for what would weaken the argument. so, to simply answer this, an except questions answer needs to be something that is one of the following
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
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.
110 comments
I am proud I got this I was between B and C
I swear
Why are all the answers recently B???? When in doubt, do I just choose B????
Guys. I keep getting down to two answers with these weaken/strengthen questions and then choosing the wrong answer. Sure enough, in my Blind Review I get the 100%. I feel like I am switching the answers for some reason? I don't know if anyone else is experiencing something similar. #frustrated
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?
@DrewBetts I thought about this too. My understanding of it is that there's 1) Questions that ask to identify what strengthens/weakens MOST and 2) questions that ask to identify the "EXCEPT".
You generally shouldn't go for the negation of a premise when the question is asking you to pick the answer that most supports or denies something (because its likely not doing much to support/deny) but when it's an EXCEPT question, its asking you to identify the odd one out. The wrong options don't have to all weaken/strengthen the argument in the best way.
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.
@OmarAbuaita Agreed, it's very frustrating.
@OmarAbuaita lmao
[This comment was deleted.]
@ramrob2k12 Are you referring to something in the video? Could you let me know where this issue comes up?
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
@CaseyLiu
A) Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food
this answer choice is connected to Premise 3 which states irradiation->URP-> health problem+ cancer
we aren't denying the premise of URP's causing health problems and cancer. The answer choice tells us that the URP that shows up from irradiating our food rarely shows up in the food, it still shows up when we irradiate but it doesn't matter cuz we aren't eating it. So it weakens the claim that we need to avoid irradiated food.
C) A study showed that irradiation leaves the vitamin content of virtually all fruits and vegetables unchanged.
P2 says irradiation CAN reduce the vit content of fresh foods leaving behind gunk). Never says it always does but that it CAN. That one little word changes ALOT on this damn test. For example whenever I turn on my stove it CAN blow up my house and DOES blow up my house are 2 completely different things.
But now the answer choice is saying in a study rads doesnt affect the food. We know it CAN but in this particular study it showed it DOESNT. Which weakens the claim that we should avoid avoid irradiated food.
D) This is a comparative statement turns out the bad chems in irradiated food (while still being bad for human consumption) arent as numerous as the bad chems in normal food. Which weakens for sure.
E) Just says oh the cancer scare we got from the P3 isnt a major cause for cancer. People that eat irradiated food arent more at risk than people that eat normal food. We just assumed that OMG theres URP's that come from the irradiation process we're all going to die of cancer but in truth it doesnt raise our risk of cancer more than someone who eates normal food.
The problem I originally had was I attributed my own thoughts and assumptions of the premises to be true and was too in my own head . Like OMG irradiation can kill vit content and leaves behind gunk , it must always happen every time. Ahhhh irradiation leaves behind URPS that will give me cancer. The URP must be on my food after being irradiated every time!!!!!! But these are assumptions and knee jerk reactions to the premise.
My suggestion is treat the premises like News headlines they mean what they say but somewhere along the lines theres some BS you have to wade through to get to the truth
honestly I just keep pushing through bc I'm sure this will all click someday soon rip
@ANP read my mind twin
@ANP Literalllllyyyyy
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
@IsaacLuo yooooo im cryingggggggg
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.
"Third, irradiation spawns URPs that cause serious health problems, including cancer". This sentence implies that some foods will have URPs. However, the answer is clarifying that it is very unlikely that the foods will have URPs.
I read this as "eradicated"...
I can never get EXCEPT questions correctly ohmygod #help
my trick(doesnt work for everyone): but when the question asks for an except, we automatically assume its for the inverse (strenghtens, excpet or ect). BUT, the question stem does not directly ask you for what would weaken the argument. so, to simply answer this, an except questions answer needs to be something that is one of the following
1. not related
2. not supportive to the question stem
3. or does weaken
idk if this makes sense...but works for me!
That's super helpful, thanks for the advice!
@akshayamadduru401 this is a thought process I already had, but needed this confirmation. Thank you.
Does this irradiation thing actually happen? Like what
food is irradiated, but from what I know it is not harmful to consumers
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