I didn't pick C because of "modern" and "most". I thought that "modern" doesn't weaken since animals evolved, so it's not a strong indicator for something that already exist. Did someone get tricked by this too and can explain why? Thanks :)
I was left with C & D but went with D. I see why D is wrong but C doesn't seem that great either. If most dont have porous bones, it implies that some do. Maybe the ichthyosaur is one of those some that do. I assume this goes back to the spectrum of support, because C does weaken, but itself makes you draw some assumptions.
I got this question right, however, I was way over the target time. Anyone have any tips of how to approach a question like this in more of a timely manner?
I understood it wasn't D because it only talked about whales and there are other marine deep diving mammals that the ichthyosaur could have be similar to so I ruled it out immediately.
I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.
I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.
Even if we make "D" correct by saying the Whales have the characteristics that the dinosaurs did not have, is it still the best answer? I crossed out "D" because it was talking about the Whales (subset ) specifically, rather than the deep-diving mammals (superset) as a whole. I saw the whales as a subset, so even if the dinosaurs had dissimilar characteristics to the whales, wouldn't there still be a possibility that there were other deep-diving mammals without those characteristics similar to the dinosaurs?
For those of you who might still be having trouble seeing how ridiculous the analogy in this stimulus is, this is basically what it's saying:
"Modern rockets have combustion engines that make them capable of space travel. The earliest cars also had combustion engines. We can conclude from this that the earliest cars were also capable of space travel."
on my interface the stimulus was jumping back and forth, one word jumping from one line to the next line down making all the text move. This has happened on one previous question
I understand why C. is correct, but isn't it still true that the phrase in D. "for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs," weakens the argument (although more weakly than C.?).
"No evidence for" does not mean evidence against. However, no evidence for DOES mean less likely to be true, doesn't it?
If I have no evidence something is true, it is less likely to be true compared to if I DID have evidence for that thing. So the fact that there is no evidence for does weaken (albeit weakly). I bring up this point because J.Y. has mentioned multiple times that weaken questions DO NOT ask us to definitively disprove the conclusion. Does "no evidence for" disprove anything? No, it does not. But that is not the standard anyway.
I don't understand what J.Y. means when he says D. "invites us to make an unwarranted assumption." Why doesn't D. weaken even when you DO NOT assume no evidence = evidence against?
I'm pissed. i picked D and ruled out C with so much confidence LOLOL
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!
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.
89 comments
These explanations make a large amount of assumptions
I didn't pick C because of "modern" and "most". I thought that "modern" doesn't weaken since animals evolved, so it's not a strong indicator for something that already exist. Did someone get tricked by this too and can explain why? Thanks :)
I was left with C & D but went with D. I see why D is wrong but C doesn't seem that great either. If most dont have porous bones, it implies that some do. Maybe the ichthyosaur is one of those some that do. I assume this goes back to the spectrum of support, because C does weaken, but itself makes you draw some assumptions.
I think I was so attached to "mammal", I missed the change to "reptile" so I thought (c) was just irrelevant. Good lesson in close reading!
it felt too easy, as i submitted i questioned if i was baited. how do i become more confident in my answer choice :/
i will spend 5 min on an easy difficulty question and get it wrong but get this one right in 30 seconds LOL
Would C still be the answer if we replaced "most" with "some"?
I got this question right, however, I was way over the target time. Anyone have any tips of how to approach a question like this in more of a timely manner?
I understood it wasn't D because it only talked about whales and there are other marine deep diving mammals that the ichthyosaur could have be similar to so I ruled it out immediately.
I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.
I think the reason so many of us are frustrated is because of the way the curriculum is designed, at least this specific lesson. You teach us new rules/strategies to go by, at which point we try to really focus on understanding them and embed our heads with it, but you do it without allowing us to feel like we understood them correctly. You do the opposite and give us an outlier question to review almost immediately. We’re not there yet. Not even close. We need more examples to which we can answer with confidence and feel like we can correctly apply the rules you’ve taught us at the appropriate times. Only then can we recognize the outlier questions and realize that we can’t apply the same rules there. You teach a new rule, here for the analogy questions, I try to learn them correctly and try to apply it in the first “Try Yourself” and then next I get it wrong even though I thought I learned your lesson correctly. It’s almost like you’re contradicting your own lessons by giving the oulier questions and we are left feeling like none of these lessons are reliable, even though we spent so much time trying to understand them.
Even if we make "D" correct by saying the Whales have the characteristics that the dinosaurs did not have, is it still the best answer? I crossed out "D" because it was talking about the Whales (subset ) specifically, rather than the deep-diving mammals (superset) as a whole. I saw the whales as a subset, so even if the dinosaurs had dissimilar characteristics to the whales, wouldn't there still be a possibility that there were other deep-diving mammals without those characteristics similar to the dinosaurs?
D just gonna play in my face like that
For those of you who might still be having trouble seeing how ridiculous the analogy in this stimulus is, this is basically what it's saying:
"Modern rockets have combustion engines that make them capable of space travel. The earliest cars also had combustion engines. We can conclude from this that the earliest cars were also capable of space travel."
Like... bro.
Call me Ishmael the way I focused too much on the whale
I was stuck between D and C but I had a feeling it was C but went with C. I shouldve trusted my gut
I ate. Finally.
Finally got one 😮💨
HA first question that has genuinely pissed me off. I would've bet my entire LSAT score that D was right. OMG this was hurtful.
I ruled C out because it says "most." Can't we conclude that some of the /DD can include the Ichthyosaurus since it has the porous bones?
Wow, this was a tricky one
on my interface the stimulus was jumping back and forth, one word jumping from one line to the next line down making all the text move. This has happened on one previous question
#feedback
In the end of the Let's Review section, fourth line, it says "mammal ichthyosaur" instead of reptile ichthyosaur. with love to 7sage
#co-design
I understand why C. is correct, but isn't it still true that the phrase in D. "for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs," weakens the argument (although more weakly than C.?).
"No evidence for" does not mean evidence against. However, no evidence for DOES mean less likely to be true, doesn't it?
If I have no evidence something is true, it is less likely to be true compared to if I DID have evidence for that thing. So the fact that there is no evidence for does weaken (albeit weakly). I bring up this point because J.Y. has mentioned multiple times that weaken questions DO NOT ask us to definitively disprove the conclusion. Does "no evidence for" disprove anything? No, it does not. But that is not the standard anyway.
I don't understand what J.Y. means when he says D. "invites us to make an unwarranted assumption." Why doesn't D. weaken even when you DO NOT assume no evidence = evidence against?
#help
I'm pissed. i picked D and ruled out C with so much confidence LOLOL