I kept getting these non-casual WSE questions wrong. I reviewed the lesson on non-casual logic and got this one correct. I was missing the fundamentals. Analogy and cost benefit. Now I know what to focus on to weaken or strengthen arguments using non-casual logic. Evaluate still tricky.
Almost fell for D but it talked more about consumers and the process. Surprised I got this one so fast!
Side note: America's national parks are one of the most beautiful things the country has to offer. I wouldn't want to privatize the Grand Canyon or Glacier National Park, keeping land like that accessible to all is super important!!
Is anyone else worried about knowing the definition/ meaning of words used?? (expedient in this case)
I have to google definitions at least 5 times every time i do a practice test. Not sure how to get around this weakness as each LSAT is obviously going to have different verbiage
my reasoning may not be practical or even correct, but the reason I immediately eliminated D was because I found it to strengthen the argument. far less people visit national parks than use telephones and the benefits between them aren't really comparable either, this is definitely me pulling in outside knowledge but in my head I just thought "well duh this makes perfect sense"
was riding a confident correct answer streak before this one humbled me
I think the major difference between D and E is that: D says the result of privatizing would have a smaller impact, but an impact nonetheless; E likewise says the analogy won't 100% carry over, but that the difference will impact the process, not necessarily the result. While it doesn't outright show how the analogy isn't applicable, it does cast doubt on the conclusion.
oh okay, so in THIS question the strength of the analogy matters, but in the previous module the focus solely mattered on the conclusion, and not on the analogy.
JY LOVES to make rules convenient to different questions. What a waste of time 7sage is.
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.
E is a BIG assumption regarding competition. This is a terrible argument. The "National Park" system has no competition because the government manages it. Any privatization would likely increase prices for visitors.
With weakening questions, if an answer choice is simply trying to contradict the conclusion or premises in the stim is it fair to assume that it is an incorrect answer choice? Contradiction doesn't really clear the bar set by weakening questions, right?
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.
11
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!
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.
109 comments
I have somehow gotten much worse at these questions over time... Is my brain frying?
D almost fucking got me on this one. Good try, LSAT!
I kept getting these non-casual WSE questions wrong. I reviewed the lesson on non-casual logic and got this one correct. I was missing the fundamentals. Analogy and cost benefit. Now I know what to focus on to weaken or strengthen arguments using non-casual logic. Evaluate still tricky.
I went with D because I got hung up on "E" mentioning "companies", thinking that National Parks are not companies, so I chose wrong.
Almost fell for D but it talked more about consumers and the process. Surprised I got this one so fast!
Side note: America's national parks are one of the most beautiful things the country has to offer. I wouldn't want to privatize the Grand Canyon or Glacier National Park, keeping land like that accessible to all is super important!!
"Weaken" does NOT mean "must be false."
s
tag yourself, i am the rogue s at the very bottom of this page
I have to remember that the answer choices are true. I kept reading (E) and saying "Okay but how do you KNOW it'll cause less competition?"
Doesn't matter, it's just true.
Is anyone else worried about knowing the definition/ meaning of words used?? (expedient in this case)
I have to google definitions at least 5 times every time i do a practice test. Not sure how to get around this weakness as each LSAT is obviously going to have different verbiage
my reasoning may not be practical or even correct, but the reason I immediately eliminated D was because I found it to strengthen the argument. far less people visit national parks than use telephones and the benefits between them aren't really comparable either, this is definitely me pulling in outside knowledge but in my head I just thought "well duh this makes perfect sense"
was riding a confident correct answer streak before this one humbled me
I think the major difference between D and E is that: D says the result of privatizing would have a smaller impact, but an impact nonetheless; E likewise says the analogy won't 100% carry over, but that the difference will impact the process, not necessarily the result. While it doesn't outright show how the analogy isn't applicable, it does cast doubt on the conclusion.
E gets down to the nitty griddy, the cause the why
ahhh I got it wrong but in BR I understood why E was the best answer lol def need to slow down a tad
oh okay, so in THIS question the strength of the analogy matters, but in the previous module the focus solely mattered on the conclusion, and not on the analogy.
JY LOVES to make rules convenient to different questions. What a waste of time 7sage is.
I find it difficult to spot causal mechanisms in an argument if they are not explicitly mentioned in the question type. Does anyone have any advice?
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.
Isn't this Causal Logic? Why is it in the Non-Causal WSE questions? #feedback
I got jabaited
#allmyhomieshateB
┐(￣ー￣)┌
E is a BIG assumption regarding competition. This is a terrible argument. The "National Park" system has no competition because the government manages it. Any privatization would likely increase prices for visitors.
I cant seem to get a grasp on these questions and its so discouraging. Im just not getting the weakening/strengthening questions at all.
I chose E because I felt competition in the market had more bearing on the question than the amount of those who are affected.
I still don't understand why D is the wrong answer choice.
With weakening questions, if an answer choice is simply trying to contradict the conclusion or premises in the stim is it fair to assume that it is an incorrect answer choice? Contradiction doesn't really clear the bar set by weakening questions, right?
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.