I am feeling fustrated as I am always between the right answer and a wrong answer (usually the most picked wrong answer) and always choose the wrong answer in WSE Questions. In my blind review I will end up picking the correct answer.
I was 36 seconds over and only chose D as a last second gut decision. My reasoning is far from perfect but here it is.
Stimulus: New marketing campaign. No guarantee of success, but there's a chance.
(essentially, there is a possibility of failure, but a possibility of success).
A - Mentions losses, but does not state how those losses would arise. They may arise from the new campaign, maybe not. We don't know - it's too vauge on that note.
B - (I almost chose this). There are many new products that fail, but that implies that some succeed. The stimulus states that there is no gurentee of success, but there is still the possibility.
B implies there is still a possibility of success.
C - Similar to B. The stimulus implies that there is a possibility to fail and to succeed. There was never any gurentee they would fail.
D - Provides reason why it would be a bad idea to undertake this idea, despite the possibility of success. Invoking a 3rd variable that would hinder the argument.
E - We don't care about other products, only this one. If people demand more of other products that's good, but why should we not at least try to promote this one?
I chose D, but this is why I think people are picking B and C
We know that we assume the ACs are true. B and C do not guarantee the outcome if the condition is met
C. The drug company should not undertake a new marketing campaign for its newest product if the campaign has no chance to succeed.
For this to be true all that needs to happen is that if the product has a 0% chance of suceeding, the company should not do another campaign.
But in our heads when we assume truth, we go on to assume that the product does not have a chance of suceeding, so the company should not undertake a new campaign
In other words, when we say an AC is true what we say is that the conditional is right in saying whatever it said, not that what it said has happened.
I chose (D) but I didn't think of the question as a cost/benefit analysis. I just thought (D) as the only answer that really does something to weaken the argument.
Should I get in the habit of trying to identify whether a question is a cost/benifit?
I think there is another flaw with B. Even if you change "many" to "most" I don't see that as impacting the argument. Even if most marketing campaigns fail, what drawback is there to trying it anyway? B doesn't give us any reason NOT to try to marketing campaign, because there is no cost to simply trying, even if you were likely to fail. D on the other hand reveals that there is indeed a cost to attempting the marketing campaign in the first place.
Is it a stretch to say that the overall success is relevant also because the speaker is a person working at the company? Even if the company's position doesn't "matter" in the grand scheme of things, surely it's a reasonable thing to say that it matters to the people that it employs
I was so tripped up by this. I thought D was the trap answer because it explicitly said "endangered". I thought they were trying to trick us with that word :(
This argument looks very similar to a typical weakening argument. How am I supposed to tell the difference between that and a "cost-benefit" argument? Are the answer choices supposed to provide that clarity?
Why is C irrelevant, it says if true then. So we must grant that in the world of c, the market has no chance of success. So the answer contradicts the argument, but we're supposed to believe the answer because it says that's what's true.
As per D. Overall position, what does that mean? In relationship to what?
Wait, but how does it weaken the argument. You can still be successful with the one drug even if other marketing campaigns in the company are hurt. Isn't this kind of irrelevant to the argument?
The explanation to the answer made sense... it just tripped me up because I thought the focus would be on the efforts of wanting to save the product. Sometimes I struggle with gauging the bigger picture vs. the small picture
Something I want to point out: This question doesn't ask which of these answer choices weakens the argument. It asks which of these choices most weakens the argument made. That is a massive difference. All 5 answers can weaken the argument, but it asks which of the 5 most weakens it. I haven't seen that pointed out in the videos.
I feel answer choice D is trying to assumption bait you into interpreting it as "well since the other products are booming, then there is no need to save/salvage our failing product". But of course, that is NOT what D is saying
You think you are doing good. Start getting a couple of correct back to back. Then BAM! Some bullshit like this one shows up. I went with B because it directly countered the argument. D seemed like I had to do too much in order for it to work.
The argument was marketing campaign is the best shot, even though its likely not to work. Well B makes it seem like it is almost certain not to work Is it repetitive? A bit, but it also weakens the argument further..
This is the biggest issue on this test for me. Questions and answers like this. The next question I will pick the answer closer to the framework of D and get it wrong. The explanation will say some shit along the lines of "Well don't assume and why does this even matter etc.?" Then I will go back to picking answers with B framework and get it wrong. It seems like I will never be able to get them correct.
I am not getting a single one of these correct omg this entire module I have gotten wrong
2
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!
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.
93 comments
I am feeling fustrated as I am always between the right answer and a wrong answer (usually the most picked wrong answer) and always choose the wrong answer in WSE Questions. In my blind review I will end up picking the correct answer.
Can someone please help me on how to fix this?
I was 36 seconds over and only chose D as a last second gut decision. My reasoning is far from perfect but here it is.
Stimulus: New marketing campaign. No guarantee of success, but there's a chance.
(essentially, there is a possibility of failure, but a possibility of success).
A - Mentions losses, but does not state how those losses would arise. They may arise from the new campaign, maybe not. We don't know - it's too vauge on that note.
B - (I almost chose this). There are many new products that fail, but that implies that some succeed. The stimulus states that there is no gurentee of success, but there is still the possibility.
B implies there is still a possibility of success.
C - Similar to B. The stimulus implies that there is a possibility to fail and to succeed. There was never any gurentee they would fail.
D - Provides reason why it would be a bad idea to undertake this idea, despite the possibility of success. Invoking a 3rd variable that would hinder the argument.
E - We don't care about other products, only this one. If people demand more of other products that's good, but why should we not at least try to promote this one?
I chose D, but this is why I think people are picking B and C
We know that we assume the ACs are true. B and C do not guarantee the outcome if the condition is met
C. The drug company should not undertake a new marketing campaign for its newest product if the campaign has no chance to succeed.
For this to be true all that needs to happen is that if the product has a 0% chance of suceeding, the company should not do another campaign.
But in our heads when we assume truth, we go on to assume that the product does not have a chance of suceeding, so the company should not undertake a new campaign
In other words, when we say an AC is true what we say is that the conditional is right in saying whatever it said, not that what it said has happened.
This same principle applies to AC B
I chose (D) but I didn't think of the question as a cost/benefit analysis. I just thought (D) as the only answer that really does something to weaken the argument.
Should I get in the habit of trying to identify whether a question is a cost/benifit?
I think there is another flaw with B. Even if you change "many" to "most" I don't see that as impacting the argument. Even if most marketing campaigns fail, what drawback is there to trying it anyway? B doesn't give us any reason NOT to try to marketing campaign, because there is no cost to simply trying, even if you were likely to fail. D on the other hand reveals that there is indeed a cost to attempting the marketing campaign in the first place.
Is it a stretch to say that the overall success is relevant also because the speaker is a person working at the company? Even if the company's position doesn't "matter" in the grand scheme of things, surely it's a reasonable thing to say that it matters to the people that it employs
I am a little bit confused about of A is not weakened because it is an example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy? #help
I was so tripped up by this. I thought D was the trap answer because it explicitly said "endangered". I thought they were trying to trick us with that word :(
This argument looks very similar to a typical weakening argument. How am I supposed to tell the difference between that and a "cost-benefit" argument? Are the answer choices supposed to provide that clarity?
I knew B was a trap answer and still chose it lol... BR was right.
Why is C irrelevant, it says if true then. So we must grant that in the world of c, the market has no chance of success. So the answer contradicts the argument, but we're supposed to believe the answer because it says that's what's true.
As per D. Overall position, what does that mean? In relationship to what?
one thing about B is that it is actually related to the new product; whereas D is about the company......how do we know which is more important?
these are just sofucking difficult i feel like imlearning a whole new version of literature and im a native russian speaker or somesht
Wait, but how does it weaken the argument. You can still be successful with the one drug even if other marketing campaigns in the company are hurt. Isn't this kind of irrelevant to the argument?
Just got 5/5 right, LFG
these questions will be the death of me i just cant wrap my head around them... anyone have any tips when approaching?
The explanation to the answer made sense... it just tripped me up because I thought the focus would be on the efforts of wanting to save the product. Sometimes I struggle with gauging the bigger picture vs. the small picture
I got B...
Does anyone else get all the 4-5 difficulty ones correct and under the target time but struggles on like 1-2 difficulty lol?
Something I want to point out: This question doesn't ask which of these answer choices weakens the argument. It asks which of these choices most weakens the argument made. That is a massive difference. All 5 answers can weaken the argument, but it asks which of the 5 most weakens it. I haven't seen that pointed out in the videos.
UGHH I didnt read it carefully
I feel answer choice D is trying to assumption bait you into interpreting it as "well since the other products are booming, then there is no need to save/salvage our failing product". But of course, that is NOT what D is saying
I can't believe I got this correct lol
You think you are doing good. Start getting a couple of correct back to back. Then BAM! Some bullshit like this one shows up. I went with B because it directly countered the argument. D seemed like I had to do too much in order for it to work.
The argument was marketing campaign is the best shot, even though its likely not to work. Well B makes it seem like it is almost certain not to work Is it repetitive? A bit, but it also weakens the argument further..
This is the biggest issue on this test for me. Questions and answers like this. The next question I will pick the answer closer to the framework of D and get it wrong. The explanation will say some shit along the lines of "Well don't assume and why does this even matter etc.?" Then I will go back to picking answers with B framework and get it wrong. It seems like I will never be able to get them correct.
I am not getting a single one of these correct omg this entire module I have gotten wrong