I originally picked D but was down to B, D, and E, as I’m sure many people were. Looking back at it, AC B does not attack the analogy, and it just says that the privatization has been problematic for the telecommunications industry. B also does not attack the fact that it has benefited consumers, which allows the author to make the argument that it can benefit park visitors. The author never says that there won’t be any downsides. I’ve also found it crucial to stay focused on the heart and core of the author’s argument, and B gets away from that. D — on the other hand — does not necessarily weaken it. At the end of the day, we cannot guarantee that park visitors will not benefit from AC D. The 7Sage analysis also brings up a good point about the fact that, naturally, more people are invested in telecommunications, and there will be fewer people benefiting from the privatization of parks. Finally, E is just a great way of weakening it because it directly attacks the author’s reasoning. If making national parks private produces less competition, we can no longer reasonably draw the analogy with the telecommunications industry as we now have a substantial difference not previously accounted for.
im slowly starting to realize my weak points with these questions are, (1) grammar (I have to go back and review those lessons), and (2) overthinking the right answer (especially if it sounds to simple lol).
At first, I was struggling with realizing why AC D was wrong, but now it's clear: the difference it points out is irrelevant to the argument in the stim. We don't need to prove that the parks would benefit just as much as the telecoms industry. All we need is just a benefit.
AC E points out an integral part of the causal chain: competition. Without as much competition, then we can't have net benefits for consumers. This points out a relevant dissimilarity between the parks and the telecoms businesses
I have gotten almost every single question wrong the past 7-8 questions, someone please tell me there is still hope. I am just really behind or is it normal to still be this confused?
@Chlob if you are able to, take a day break. Some times we can be studying while we are fatigued and will make no progress. Afterwards I would revisit the areas you are struggling and give yourself a chance for a fresh perspective! :) Good luck!
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.
Yay! The other answers were attractive but this one was the only one that was relevant to the actual reason privitization would work for one and not the other. I think I'm getting it! :)
I chose B on this one because I thought that since it was attacking the premise, then the argument overall would be cooked. However, while it does attack the premise, it does not attack the conclusion. Sure, there might be harm associated with the economic side of it, but that does not say ANYTHING about how it might benefit consumers. Next time it's imperative to distinguish if an answer choice is actually pertinent to the question or if it is just a red herring.
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.,
146 comments
I originally picked D but was down to B, D, and E, as I’m sure many people were. Looking back at it, AC B does not attack the analogy, and it just says that the privatization has been problematic for the telecommunications industry. B also does not attack the fact that it has benefited consumers, which allows the author to make the argument that it can benefit park visitors. The author never says that there won’t be any downsides. I’ve also found it crucial to stay focused on the heart and core of the author’s argument, and B gets away from that. D — on the other hand — does not necessarily weaken it. At the end of the day, we cannot guarantee that park visitors will not benefit from AC D. The 7Sage analysis also brings up a good point about the fact that, naturally, more people are invested in telecommunications, and there will be fewer people benefiting from the privatization of parks. Finally, E is just a great way of weakening it because it directly attacks the author’s reasoning. If making national parks private produces less competition, we can no longer reasonably draw the analogy with the telecommunications industry as we now have a substantial difference not previously accounted for.
Bro I was in between D & E lol picked D then picked E blind review UGHHHHH
Attacking the quality of the effect, it won't be the same between the two.
im slowly starting to realize my weak points with these questions are, (1) grammar (I have to go back and review those lessons), and (2) overthinking the right answer (especially if it sounds to simple lol).
At first, I was struggling with realizing why AC D was wrong, but now it's clear: the difference it points out is irrelevant to the argument in the stim. We don't need to prove that the parks would benefit just as much as the telecoms industry. All we need is just a benefit.
AC E points out an integral part of the causal chain: competition. Without as much competition, then we can't have net benefits for consumers. This points out a relevant dissimilarity between the parks and the telecoms businesses
I am so bad at these, but I got it after BR, so I am happy.
YES
I think I get every single analogy and parallel reasoning question wrong. I don't think I like analogies lollll
Thought it was E then switched to D last minute, once I got it incorrect I knew it had to be E.
Picked B at first due to a lack of careful reading. E was glaringly correct on BR
I got it wrong but I promise it makes sense now :)
I have gotten almost every single question wrong the past 7-8 questions, someone please tell me there is still hope. I am just really behind or is it normal to still be this confused?
@Chlob Hang in there man the lsat is a marathon, not a sprint. Just keep going over the basics and practicing!
@Chlob if you are able to, take a day break. Some times we can be studying while we are fatigued and will make no progress. Afterwards I would revisit the areas you are struggling and give yourself a chance for a fresh perspective! :) Good luck!
Distinguishing between the fact that we're looking at the benefit in geneal to consumers rather than the extent of the benefit makes D vs. E clearer
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.
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.
Asking the pros - is there ever a time where a stimulus uses reasoning by analogy and the correct answer to weaken it ISN'T attacking the analogy?
@beneley2k would that be entering the realm of a different question type bc it's not attacking the analogy?
Okay..... I'm giving myself a pat on the back because I GOT IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!
Was hunting for the answer choice that attacked the analogy directly. Helped me find the answer very quickly.
Yay! The other answers were attractive but this one was the only one that was relevant to the actual reason privitization would work for one and not the other. I think I'm getting it! :)
I had to be very careful with this one and not assume too much on this one cause I LOVE the national parks! But guess who got it right!!!
YAYAYA I got this one right :)
You can call me a trout, because I always fall for that bait
I chose B on this one because I thought that since it was attacking the premise, then the argument overall would be cooked. However, while it does attack the premise, it does not attack the conclusion. Sure, there might be harm associated with the economic side of it, but that does not say ANYTHING about how it might benefit consumers. Next time it's imperative to distinguish if an answer choice is actually pertinent to the question or if it is just a red herring.
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.,
Bang first try!!!