I am still so confused as to why C is definitively wrong. If the physics peer review system was 100% effective why should physicians change to match Biology?
If this was a necessary assumption question I would understand why this is wrong, but this question stem is just asking to strengthen. How does C not strengthen the argument by getting rid of the possibility that the peer review system is 100% effective and therefore not conductive to progress to change?
Got it right on blind review. Remember to anchor to the conclusion and treat the answer choice as enhancing the premises already there. What is conducive to progress in physics? If the field of physics was doing "the same thing" as biologists, aka more effectively preventing scientific fraud.
enhanced safeguards --prevents--->fraud---->conducive to progress
contrapositive: /conducive to progress--->/preventing fraud.
^Answer A is the contrapositive of the conclusion.
Let's say you didn't realise this question was a strengthen question. Could you have gone with like a Sufficient Assumption technique to find the Correct AC?
Isn't it more clear that AC A is correct if you think about this as an SA question rather than a Strengthen Q?
I have one question it says that to analogize them it could be either that Physics is equally or LESS effective. Wouldn't it being less effective also disanalogize it? Or am I seeing it wrong and that it being less effective strengthens even more because it suggests that they could use the same route that Biologists took.
A seemed a bit tricky to grasp right after reading the stimulus, you immediately think its a throw away choice, but careful reading of the question helps. If fraud then -progress, if progress then -fraud. or if prevention then progress and if -progress then -prevention.
My science background (I'm a HS science teacher) really bit me in the ass here because I assumed (A) was such an obvious assumption it was just established truth thus wouldn't strengthen the argument but just reiterate what is intrinsically true less trust in research = weaker research = less progress . (IDK if that makes sense lol)
i approached this as a sufficient assumption question because of the phrase "if assumed" in the question stem.
then A was pretty straight forward. A focuses on that assumption and does not try to weaken it. So thats good. then the "sufficient assumption" is the part where you link the premise and the conclusion as tight as possible.
did not pick D because it goes against the author's assumption.
to strengthen, you want to hold on to that assumption STRONGLY.
3
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.
171 comments
Absolutely no idea how that one was a level 5 question
I am still so confused as to why C is definitively wrong. If the physics peer review system was 100% effective why should physicians change to match Biology?
If this was a necessary assumption question I would understand why this is wrong, but this question stem is just asking to strengthen. How does C not strengthen the argument by getting rid of the possibility that the peer review system is 100% effective and therefore not conductive to progress to change?
Man, the answer here is so obvious that I looked at it and was like "theres no way" and crossed it out. Tricky aaaah question
Why is it rated as a 5? The question regarding the national parks and the telecom industry was much harder.
Had to google deleterious but got it right lmao
YESSIR did it exactly on time.
A seemed so obvious to me I assumed it was wrong LOL
the word deleterious really fucked me up
Got it right on blind review. Remember to anchor to the conclusion and treat the answer choice as enhancing the premises already there. What is conducive to progress in physics? If the field of physics was doing "the same thing" as biologists, aka more effectively preventing scientific fraud.
enhanced safeguards --prevents--->fraud---->conducive to progress
contrapositive: /conducive to progress--->/preventing fraud.
^Answer A is the contrapositive of the conclusion.
Let's say you didn't realise this question was a strengthen question. Could you have gone with like a Sufficient Assumption technique to find the Correct AC?
Isn't it more clear that AC A is correct if you think about this as an SA question rather than a Strengthen Q?
I have one question it says that to analogize them it could be either that Physics is equally or LESS effective. Wouldn't it being less effective also disanalogize it? Or am I seeing it wrong and that it being less effective strengthens even more because it suggests that they could use the same route that Biologists took.
Darn it! I doubted myself over that little word "deleterious" (use context clues to know it has negative connotation ughgughughgtgugh!!!!)
had to search up conducive and deleterious help
brb googling "deleterious"... smh...
A seemed a bit tricky to grasp right after reading the stimulus, you immediately think its a throw away choice, but careful reading of the question helps. If fraud then -progress, if progress then -fraud. or if prevention then progress and if -progress then -prevention.
"deleterious" my ass
My science background (I'm a HS science teacher) really bit me in the ass here because I assumed (A) was such an obvious assumption it was just established truth thus wouldn't strengthen the argument but just reiterate what is intrinsically true less trust in research = weaker research = less progress . (IDK if that makes sense lol)
got this correct during blind review and tell me why im extremely proud of myself rn
Imagine if (A) said "damaging."
Not "dEletErIouS."
bro how is this a level 5 difficulty question, I had 10 time more trouble solving that last one that was level 2 smh
for some reason this one was very easy for me. but the Marine reptile/whale one kicked my ass. I wonder why
WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHAT IN OUR WORLD IS COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE IM GONA CRASH OOOOUUUUUTTTT
the fact that I have not missed a single strengthening question but haven't gotten a single weakening question is so much fun
ugh I have to remember that words like "completely" are carefully chosen by the LSAT writers, not like how I throw them around in real life...
i approached this as a sufficient assumption question because of the phrase "if assumed" in the question stem.
then A was pretty straight forward. A focuses on that assumption and does not try to weaken it. So thats good. then the "sufficient assumption" is the part where you link the premise and the conclusion as tight as possible.
did not pick D because it goes against the author's assumption.
to strengthen, you want to hold on to that assumption STRONGLY.