It really does something to your confidence when you miss every question in a section. Rage doesn't even begin to describe how I feel when doing these questions.
I used to be this way for LG. Almost planned on scrapping my June test plans because of that. Time made all the difference for me there, and should do the same for you here.
It happened to me last section before this one. A huge gamechanger was really understand Premise and Conclusion because that is the foundation of every single question. Rewatch the videos!!
@amf08d334 omg i feeeeeelllll YOUU! I know its been 2 years but I'm glad at least someone is having the same feelings as I do. But to combat this, I've just been using chatgpt to generate me motivational quotes from people. It works somehow lol
Just want everyone to know I absolutely crushed this section. With that said I bombed the last section. Take note of where you do well and don't, then study that section more.
I was so focused on making sure the answer matched the analogous reasoning in the stim that I FORGOT this was a weakening question.
D STRENGTHENS the conclusion of the argument that the privatization of national park would probably benefit consumers, even if the benefit is small.
E is correct because it directly goes against the stim in that it says that privatization of parks will produce much less competition between priv. companies whereas the stim says that the privatization of telecommunication companies have produce more competition between a variety of companies.
National parks privatized -- less competition
Telecom. privatized -- more competition
D is wrong because it says that it will benefit consumers, period. Even if it is to a smaller scale.
PAY ATTENTION TO QUESTION STIM (Don't be like me.)
E pissed me off so much because couldn't I use the same reasoning to rule it out as D? Just because there would be less competition than the telecommunication industry doesn't mean there's NO competition in national park industry. D is similarly saying less consumers would benefit as much but is wrong because it's still saying that consumers will benefit.
D explicitly states an analogous benefit. Meaning the analogy is still valid under D.
While E opens the door for not only a decreased benefit but also a possibility for price increases and things to go wrong.
Your confusion comes from the "Most weakens". The argument does not need to be destroyed, it just needs to be hurt. E doesn't ruin the argument, but it opens the door for it to become completely invalid. Doing way more than D does or ever could.
It really does annoy me when I get it wrong the first time and then on the BR I get it correct, like come one I should of gotten this right on the first try.,
someone said in a previous comment section that in most weaken questions everything besides the right answer will be irrelevant or does nothing. While the correct answer will mention the connection brought up in the premise.
like a lot of yall, I was waffling btw D & E but chose E with the following reasoning. D is incorrect because it's merely affecting the extent of the analogy between privatizing telecoms and national parks, and the extent is irrelevant for the sake of the politicians argument. Whether it benefits visitors a bit or a lot, that doesn't change the argument that we should privatize national parks. E on the other hand challenges the similarity itself by specifying that the level competition is lower, which means that the supposed benefits don't necessarily have to follow in the comparison.
think about it this way: D turns the argument from ++ to +, while E turns it from ++ to neutral or even -. the latter is what I'm looking for in a weakening question.
How can D turn the argument from ++ to +, while E turns it from ++ to neutral or even -, when E only said that there's much less competition? I would understand this if E would have said that there would be no competition.
I'm still trying to figure this out myself but maybe attempting to explain it to someone else could help!
D said privatization would benefit national park visitors. This still holds true, whether it benefits them a ton or a little.
With E, we are less sure that privatization would benefit national park visitors. First of all, E includes the possibility of 0 competition among national parks. For the sake of addressing your concern though, even if there was much less competition but not 0, this is a significant difference in the causal chain that could not only impact the extent of the benefits to visitors, but whether there are benefits at all. Perhaps less competition doesn't lead to any benefits at all. Perhaps there has to be a certain level of competition for it to cause benefits.
So for E, don't assume:
Telecom: Privatization -c--> competition -c--> benefits for consumers
National parks: Privatization -c--> less competition -c--> less benefits, but still benefits for visitors nonetheless
Also, I feel like the correct answer for arguments by analogy rarely tries to attack the conclusion outright. It tries to weaken the support structure between the premises and conclusion. In this case, this would be attacking assumptions made in the argument, or the similarities of the two analogs.
152 comments
hey, so this is insane
YOOO HEY
not relevant but our names referencing legally blond>>
I know right
It really does something to your confidence when you miss every question in a section. Rage doesn't even begin to describe how I feel when doing these questions.
I know exactly how you feel.
I used to be this way for LG. Almost planned on scrapping my June test plans because of that. Time made all the difference for me there, and should do the same for you here.
It happened to me last section before this one. A huge gamechanger was really understand Premise and Conclusion because that is the foundation of every single question. Rewatch the videos!!
just keep swimming ☺
Do not go gentle into that good night but rage, rage against the dying of the light.
@amf08d334 omg i feeeeeelllll YOUU! I know its been 2 years but I'm glad at least someone is having the same feelings as I do. But to combat this, I've just been using chatgpt to generate me motivational quotes from people. It works somehow lol
You can call me a trout, because I always fall for that bait
Must address the analogy
I'm ngl I hate these questions. They're the bane of my existence.
Just want everyone to know I absolutely crushed this section. With that said I bombed the last section. Take note of where you do well and don't, then study that section more.
Sameeee. This section made so much sense to me but others don't. Awesome tip that everyone should take note of.
I cant seem to get a grasp on these questions and its so discouraging. Im just not getting the weakening/strengthening questions at all.
Good thing LSAC is getting rid of the question type soon!
@antonioandolino wait they are????
I got jabaited
#allmyhomieshateB
┐(￣ー￣)┌
I have somehow gotten much worse at these questions over time... Is my brain frying?
@cwferrari same here
WSE is kicking my.
Thank you for this comment.. I thought it was just me
I was so focused on making sure the answer matched the analogous reasoning in the stim that I FORGOT this was a weakening question.
D STRENGTHENS the conclusion of the argument that the privatization of national park would probably benefit consumers, even if the benefit is small.
E is correct because it directly goes against the stim in that it says that privatization of parks will produce much less competition between priv. companies whereas the stim says that the privatization of telecommunication companies have produce more competition between a variety of companies.
National parks privatized -- less competition
Telecom. privatized -- more competition
D is wrong because it says that it will benefit consumers, period. Even if it is to a smaller scale.
PAY ATTENTION TO QUESTION STIM (Don't be like me.)
this WSE section is whooping my ass
@yes-coconuts you ain't alone brother, it's been whooping me for a week now and I don't know how to break all this done lol.
i'll never care for park ranger job security again.
E pissed me off so much because couldn't I use the same reasoning to rule it out as D? Just because there would be less competition than the telecommunication industry doesn't mean there's NO competition in national park industry. D is similarly saying less consumers would benefit as much but is wrong because it's still saying that consumers will benefit.
D explicitly states an analogous benefit. Meaning the analogy is still valid under D.
While E opens the door for not only a decreased benefit but also a possibility for price increases and things to go wrong.
Your confusion comes from the "Most weakens". The argument does not need to be destroyed, it just needs to be hurt. E doesn't ruin the argument, but it opens the door for it to become completely invalid. Doing way more than D does or ever could.
It really does annoy me when I get it wrong the first time and then on the BR I get it correct, like come one I should of gotten this right on the first try.,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
i know ;-;
someone said in a previous comment section that in most weaken questions everything besides the right answer will be irrelevant or does nothing. While the correct answer will mention the connection brought up in the premise.
I chose E because I felt competition in the market had more bearing on the question than the amount of those who are affected.
ahhh I got it wrong but in BR I understood why E was the best answer lol def need to slow down a tad
like a lot of yall, I was waffling btw D & E but chose E with the following reasoning. D is incorrect because it's merely affecting the extent of the analogy between privatizing telecoms and national parks, and the extent is irrelevant for the sake of the politicians argument. Whether it benefits visitors a bit or a lot, that doesn't change the argument that we should privatize national parks. E on the other hand challenges the similarity itself by specifying that the level competition is lower, which means that the supposed benefits don't necessarily have to follow in the comparison.
think about it this way: D turns the argument from ++ to +, while E turns it from ++ to neutral or even -. the latter is what I'm looking for in a weakening question.
makes sense thank you
How can D turn the argument from ++ to +, while E turns it from ++ to neutral or even -, when E only said that there's much less competition? I would understand this if E would have said that there would be no competition.
I'm still trying to figure this out myself but maybe attempting to explain it to someone else could help!
D said privatization would benefit national park visitors. This still holds true, whether it benefits them a ton or a little.
With E, we are less sure that privatization would benefit national park visitors. First of all, E includes the possibility of 0 competition among national parks. For the sake of addressing your concern though, even if there was much less competition but not 0, this is a significant difference in the causal chain that could not only impact the extent of the benefits to visitors, but whether there are benefits at all. Perhaps less competition doesn't lead to any benefits at all. Perhaps there has to be a certain level of competition for it to cause benefits.
So for E, don't assume:
Telecom: Privatization -c--> competition -c--> benefits for consumers
National parks: Privatization -c--> less competition -c--> less benefits, but still benefits for visitors nonetheless
Also, I feel like the correct answer for arguments by analogy rarely tries to attack the conclusion outright. It tries to weaken the support structure between the premises and conclusion. In this case, this would be attacking assumptions made in the argument, or the similarities of the two analogs.
Bro I was in between D & E lol picked D then picked E blind review UGHHHHH
I think I get every single analogy and parallel reasoning question wrong. I don't think I like analogies lollll
Okay..... I'm giving myself a pat on the back because I GOT IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!
Thanks LSAT! You really tricked me there!
Sometimes I watch these explanations and I scream READ IT THOROUGHLY !! I completely glimpsed through the competition part.
almost fell for (D).....thank god for this v2 curriculum
Fell for it personally and then in my BR I changed for E and understood why I got played on this one haha
(D) got me, and boy was I mad when I realized what I had done hahaha
you are not alone