What is the point of thinking of an alternative hypothesis if it is not "worthwhile to try to anticipate"? I usually don't think of an alternative hypothesis because it takes so much time, and I often find the right answers going straight to POE. I am worried this will prevent me from answering the harder questions correctly.
i took an LSAT study break to focus on school for ab 2-3 weeks and when i came back to studying, i keep getting everything wrong. does anyone have any tips to help me out?
@Jineen I had this problem too. I had to re-start the module and take new notes. Time-consuming I know, but it helped me tremendously. And if i felt I knew some of the lessons from weeks prior, I skimmed over it to save time.
@kimwexler Thank you Kim! I was starting RC and got through Critique/Debate Passages but I'm not confident enough to restart that right now. I'm struggling with LR currently, which I am usually really good at. Should I just review/redo my most previous LR module and then redo my RC?
@Jineen Same here, just took 2 weeks and continued with RRE and causal arg.... None of the answers got correct ... It helped to restart only these modules while also attending some Live classes.
hi! I don't understand what they mean by "New data that is consistent with the hypothesis being either true or false." this was in the Patterns for Wrong answers section. #feedback
@IsabellaP I think.... this is means they give you a new fact, something that can be right or wrong if the hypothesis is true, but doesn't necessarily give you the right answer, just another link to confuse you. I think you can look at it as an alternative explanation, but not the right answer because it doesn't stay consistant with the hypothesis.
For example:
Hypothesis: “Coffee causes better test scores.”
Trap “new data”: “People who drink coffee often study in the library.”
If coffee truly helps, this could be true.
If coffee does nothing, this could still be true. So it doesn’t prove coffee caused the higher scores—it supports an alternative explanation (studying).
@rkalam.21 There isn't directly. But my advise is if you go to drills and "select causal," a significant portion will be weaken/strengthen. I would say especially if you set them to 4/5 hard and then just keep drilling.
For the questions that pop up that aren't W/S, they'll still contain causal logic, so just take as much time on them to pick apart weaknesses (which is inverted to be strengths) as practice. (And still answer them ultimately so you don't waste them).
This clicked for me when I incorrectly chose AC "E" on Lesson 32 (Chirality of Weedkiller), so I'd suggest checking that out but I'll try an example below:
Imagine a Strengthen question, and the conclusion in the stimulus is something like "Based on these studies, scientists have demonstrated that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer".
A trap answer that presents NEW data consistent with the hypothesis could be something like:
"Scientists have used MRI machines to image more lung cancer patients who are also heavy smokers"
However in the studies mentioned in our imagined stimulus, no MRI machines were used, but the studies were still Ideal.
MRI machines are expensive, fancy pieces of technology, and so we assume that a Fancy Machine provides strong proof of the hypothesis. Even more convincingly, the findings of the MRI experiment are consistent with the findings pronounced in the conclusion.
But think about something being consistent in terms of the Expanded Spectrum of Support from earlier lessons. "Consistent" sits in the middle of the spectrum between "Supports" and "Contradicts".
The MRI study is a new piece of data, a new premise, that leads us to the SAME conclusion provided in the stimulus. Great! But that doesn't strengthen that conclusion, because that conclusion is relying on the corresponding premises within the stimulus.
Now lets imagine another answer choice:
"Scientists have replicated these studies (referring to the imaginary studies in the imaginary stimulus) and imaged more lung cancer patients who were heavy smokers".
Okay: Imaged, how? More? How many more? Doesn't matter. The studies from the premise are replicated and the findings are the same. This provides support for the studies, which are tied to the conclusion being evaluated.
I am having trouble intuiting the grammar during my initial tries on questions, and it is screwing up my timing and sometimes will catch me with trap answers. After running through the grammar section already, where should I go to drill grammar?
Can someone explain "non-casual" assumptions in their own terms to see if i get a better understanding? I think i know what it is, i just can't put it in my own terms.
NON- CAUSAL LR is something to be careful of as typically the arg in the stem will be set to MIMIC an exp design but it's NOT EVEN CLOSE to even being a pseudo-exp.
NON-CAUSAL LR
The stim simply discusses a SET OF FACTS
The conclusion is NOT A HYPOTHESIS trying to explain what's going on, its simply a STATEMENT based on claims.
I want to be very clear that a statement followed by a set of claims IS NOT the same as a HYPOTHESIS following a EXP.
the diff btw a statement and a hypothesis:
statement: makes a claim supported by facts (does say because this, this happened)
hypothesis: EXPLAINS an effect from a cause stated in the premises ( we conclude X causes y)
I find my speed is not an issue, getting the answers correct is the issue, breaking them down logically is what is wrong with me, some answers all sound good so eliminating ones that I can is where I struggle.
so perhaps speed is the issue. I try to focus on getting the answer right for now as its still the early stages. I've noticed that taking time to think, reason, and parse through everything has made it easier to understand questions and patterns as a whole, which in turn allowed to me almost instinctually pick some answer choices later and thus save time.
If for timing strategy, it isn't useful to anticipate answers, is there a particular reason we are being taught to do that with nearly every single lesson in this section? It seems as if we rarely used POE in these lessons and spent a majority of the lesson brainstorming what could be the right answer, when we could have just went straight to the answer choices and spent less time on them, which is accurate to what you are now advising us to do on the actual test.
I agree, it's very confusing when JY repeatedly says it not worth thinking about the options. I get that it's a useful thought experiment but its very time confusing.
I think we are mainly being taught to do this as a practice exercise. If you are trying to anticipate the answer when practicing, then you are actively thinking about the stimulus, assumptions, and the patterns that answers usually follow. So good for practice, impractical during timed test taking.
I think I can clarify -- it's not useful to try to come up with various specific ways to strengthen/weaken when the Weaken/Strengthen/Evaluate question is based on the phenomenon-hypothesis structure. So, although you want to understand causal reasoning enough to recognize that introducing an alternate explanation is a way to weaken, you don't need to come up with specific alternate explanations ("Maybe the birds died of disease, or maybe there was an increase in hunters, or maybe the birds' prey moved away from the area").
But this advice isn't meant to apply across the board to the rest of LR question types. So don't take this lesson to mean that anticipating is always a bad idea.
I think anticipation is more to help you have an idea of what an answer would look like which could save time, but most importantly helps you effectively find the right answer
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.
45 comments
how do I know whether grammar is an issue for me?
I did this lesson a while ago and am reviewing- can you explain what is meant by "assumption baits"?
Can someone clarify what it means when the “right answer isn’t the ideal answer”?
@hammer the correct answer will often be subtle, instead of a clear-cut explanation.
At this point I feel that I have improved, however I still feel that I have some time to go until I master this exam.,
What is the point of thinking of an alternative hypothesis if it is not "worthwhile to try to anticipate"? I usually don't think of an alternative hypothesis because it takes so much time, and I often find the right answers going straight to POE. I am worried this will prevent me from answering the harder questions correctly.
What is everyone's favorite way to review? I feel like I am grasping everything but I just want to stay sharp with things that matter.
i took an LSAT study break to focus on school for ab 2-3 weeks and when i came back to studying, i keep getting everything wrong. does anyone have any tips to help me out?
@Jineen I had this problem too. I had to re-start the module and take new notes. Time-consuming I know, but it helped me tremendously. And if i felt I knew some of the lessons from weeks prior, I skimmed over it to save time.
@kimwexler Thank you Kim! I was starting RC and got through Critique/Debate Passages but I'm not confident enough to restart that right now. I'm struggling with LR currently, which I am usually really good at. Should I just review/redo my most previous LR module and then redo my RC?
@Jineen Yes, I would do that
@Jineen Same here, just took 2 weeks and continued with RRE and causal arg.... None of the answers got correct ... It helped to restart only these modules while also attending some Live classes.
Video?
Why isnt there a drill for this section?
@Sunday_Blues13 I think because it is review.. though I agree the more LSAT questions shoved down my throat the better!
@WilliamZiebellRichards Oh I meant the WSE section as a whole, its a huge section to not have a drill after
My biggest takeaway from this unit: don't assume a baseline.
Just because two groups start something at the same time does not mean they are starting at same circumstance (think running question).
hi! I don't understand what they mean by "New data that is consistent with the hypothesis being either true or false." this was in the Patterns for Wrong answers section. #feedback
@IsabellaP I think.... this is means they give you a new fact, something that can be right or wrong if the hypothesis is true, but doesn't necessarily give you the right answer, just another link to confuse you. I think you can look at it as an alternative explanation, but not the right answer because it doesn't stay consistant with the hypothesis.
For example:
Hypothesis: “Coffee causes better test scores.”
Trap “new data”: “People who drink coffee often study in the library.”
If coffee truly helps, this could be true.
If coffee does nothing, this could still be true. So it doesn’t prove coffee caused the higher scores—it supports an alternative explanation (studying).
I hope this helps. We got this!
I love how the "Evaluate" portion of WSE is just....not explained, lol
Anyone else averaging about 10 seconds over the target time for these drills? Should I be worried about that?
you genius
bruh im sitting about a minute over sometimes for the harder questions
@hdjenkin only 10 seconds?
what is POE?
process of elimination
#feedback Is there any way i can drill WSE Causal
@rkalam.21 There isn't directly. But my advise is if you go to drills and "select causal," a significant portion will be weaken/strengthen. I would say especially if you set them to 4/5 hard and then just keep drilling.
For the questions that pop up that aren't W/S, they'll still contain causal logic, so just take as much time on them to pick apart weaknesses (which is inverted to be strengths) as practice. (And still answer them ultimately so you don't waste them).
what is poe?
process of elimination
Hes a panda
#Help What do you mean by "new data that consistent with hypothesis" in the wrong answer traps?
This clicked for me when I incorrectly chose AC "E" on Lesson 32 (Chirality of Weedkiller), so I'd suggest checking that out but I'll try an example below:
Imagine a Strengthen question, and the conclusion in the stimulus is something like "Based on these studies, scientists have demonstrated that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer".
A trap answer that presents NEW data consistent with the hypothesis could be something like:
"Scientists have used MRI machines to image more lung cancer patients who are also heavy smokers"
However in the studies mentioned in our imagined stimulus, no MRI machines were used, but the studies were still Ideal.
MRI machines are expensive, fancy pieces of technology, and so we assume that a Fancy Machine provides strong proof of the hypothesis. Even more convincingly, the findings of the MRI experiment are consistent with the findings pronounced in the conclusion.
But think about something being consistent in terms of the Expanded Spectrum of Support from earlier lessons. "Consistent" sits in the middle of the spectrum between "Supports" and "Contradicts".
The MRI study is a new piece of data, a new premise, that leads us to the SAME conclusion provided in the stimulus. Great! But that doesn't strengthen that conclusion, because that conclusion is relying on the corresponding premises within the stimulus.
Now lets imagine another answer choice:
"Scientists have replicated these studies (referring to the imaginary studies in the imaginary stimulus) and imaged more lung cancer patients who were heavy smokers".
Okay: Imaged, how? More? How many more? Doesn't matter. The studies from the premise are replicated and the findings are the same. This provides support for the studies, which are tied to the conclusion being evaluated.
#help
I am having trouble intuiting the grammar during my initial tries on questions, and it is screwing up my timing and sometimes will catch me with trap answers. After running through the grammar section already, where should I go to drill grammar?
Can someone explain "non-casual" assumptions in their own terms to see if i get a better understanding? I think i know what it is, i just can't put it in my own terms.
hi goo this is how I understand NON-CAUSAL LR,
NON- CAUSAL LR is something to be careful of as typically the arg in the stem will be set to MIMIC an exp design but it's NOT EVEN CLOSE to even being a pseudo-exp.
NON-CAUSAL LR
The stim simply discusses a SET OF FACTS
The conclusion is NOT A HYPOTHESIS trying to explain what's going on, its simply a STATEMENT based on claims.
I want to be very clear that a statement followed by a set of claims IS NOT the same as a HYPOTHESIS following a EXP.
the diff btw a statement and a hypothesis:
statement: makes a claim supported by facts (does say because this, this happened)
hypothesis: EXPLAINS an effect from a cause stated in the premises ( we conclude X causes y)
hope this helps!
What is an example of an evaluate question? Do Weaken and Strengthen both fit under that umbrella? #help
I find my speed is not an issue, getting the answers correct is the issue, breaking them down logically is what is wrong with me, some answers all sound good so eliminating ones that I can is where I struggle.
so perhaps speed is the issue. I try to focus on getting the answer right for now as its still the early stages. I've noticed that taking time to think, reason, and parse through everything has made it easier to understand questions and patterns as a whole, which in turn allowed to me almost instinctually pick some answer choices later and thus save time.
If for timing strategy, it isn't useful to anticipate answers, is there a particular reason we are being taught to do that with nearly every single lesson in this section? It seems as if we rarely used POE in these lessons and spent a majority of the lesson brainstorming what could be the right answer, when we could have just went straight to the answer choices and spent less time on them, which is accurate to what you are now advising us to do on the actual test.
I agree, it's very confusing when JY repeatedly says it not worth thinking about the options. I get that it's a useful thought experiment but its very time confusing.
I think we are mainly being taught to do this as a practice exercise. If you are trying to anticipate the answer when practicing, then you are actively thinking about the stimulus, assumptions, and the patterns that answers usually follow. So good for practice, impractical during timed test taking.
Hey presleyroddy,
I think I can clarify -- it's not useful to try to come up with various specific ways to strengthen/weaken when the Weaken/Strengthen/Evaluate question is based on the phenomenon-hypothesis structure. So, although you want to understand causal reasoning enough to recognize that introducing an alternate explanation is a way to weaken, you don't need to come up with specific alternate explanations ("Maybe the birds died of disease, or maybe there was an increase in hunters, or maybe the birds' prey moved away from the area").
But this advice isn't meant to apply across the board to the rest of LR question types. So don't take this lesson to mean that anticipating is always a bad idea.
I think anticipation is more to help you have an idea of what an answer would look like which could save time, but most importantly helps you effectively find the right answer
It's super time consuming, too. Some videos, we spend a lot of time brainstorming for it to go nowhere.