I think there is a typo in the text of P2 under "No Distinct Form of Reasoning?" S2 says: "In other words, why could the conclusion be true, despite the premises?" Shouldn't that be, "In other words, why could the conclusion be false, despite the premises (being true)? Wouldn't showing the conclusion to be true for additional reasons beyond the provided premises actually strengthen the argument? Or perhaps I've misunderstood the point of this paragraph.
Shooting your leg will get you an accomodation from LSAC. The pain from shooting your leg is not worth an accomodation from LSAT. Also, bullets are expensive. So is healthcare. Don't shoot your leg to get an accomodation.
@AlexandraBakjain This is what I was thinking. It feels like we're supposed to search for the correct ac using the same tactics that we did for causal. the only difference is that the stimulus are organized differently.
I feel like 7 sage has a tendency to overcomplicate things!
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.
26 comments
I think there is a typo in the text of P2 under "No Distinct Form of Reasoning?" S2 says: "In other words, why could the conclusion be true, despite the premises?" Shouldn't that be, "In other words, why could the conclusion be false, despite the premises (being true)? Wouldn't showing the conclusion to be true for additional reasons beyond the provided premises actually strengthen the argument? Or perhaps I've misunderstood the point of this paragraph.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Shooting your leg will get you an accomodation from LSAC. The pain from shooting your leg is not worth an accomodation from LSAT. Also, bullets are expensive. So is healthcare. Don't shoot your leg to get an accomodation.
This sounds so simple at face value. Can't wait to see how tricky the LSAT writers can be in this next section... lol
How is this lesson any different from the one before? Why not just combine them?
@AlexandraBakjain This is what I was thinking. It feels like we're supposed to search for the correct ac using the same tactics that we did for causal. the only difference is that the stimulus are organized differently.
I feel like 7 sage has a tendency to overcomplicate things!
#feedback I wish i could highlight these text in these pages/lessons like how I could highlight in practice questions themselves.
yo what up chain starts here
yo what up????
yo what up
yo what up
wassss uppp
yo what uppp
Yo what up
Yo what's the up
yo what up
yo what up
Hello there!
up what yo
@josephandrews108 yo what up
Yo what up?
yo what up?
yo what up
yo what upp
yo what up
yo what up
yo what up