I read the question stem and was like "Ok, this is a strengthen question. I know what I have to do." Digest the stem, get a good understanding and totally get my pre-phrase so I am ready to rock and roll.
Sure enough, I did a perfect weaken pre-phrase which too me to D. The answer even said this would weaken!
@GordonGianadda Shaming someone for asking a question is pathetic. If someone is willing to learn, what's the problem? Why even bother commenting that?
had to look up what conducive and deleterious both mean.. ended up getting the question right but took me almost 6 min lol. looks like i need to widen my vocabulary
@TeklaCo I was reading a book about an hour before this study session and whenever I run into a word I don't know, I'll stop write it down in a small notebook and look up the definition. Deleterious was that word!
I got this right and was so confident about it - just to have a different way of getting the answer (hopefully that's still a good thing...).
Process of elimination works wonders, of course. But I also thought A strengthened the analogy that fraud in physics and fraud in biology worked relatively similar, because it broadens the topic to "scientific fraud" (and they both fall in this category). Or even biology and physics both fall within the "scientific discipline" category mentioned in A.
Is this a good way of thinking about this? Or is this sort of thought process not the best when it comes to these types of questions? Like maybe it worked because it was this specific stimulus?
I feel like now Lawgic is holding me back in answering questions quickly- remembering how to break down the stimulus takes more time than doing lawgic in my head/recognizing patterns but not mentally categorizing it in my head.
@Sidly I feel like breaking down the stimulus into Lawgic is only helpful in formal logic, which this stimulus is not. I only really make a point to think about Lawgic or write it down on stimuli that have many conditional relationships. With stimuli on these ones, I just focus on translating in my head through all the grammar and understanding what the premises and conclusions are really saying.
I identified this as a support question immediately, so I was looking for support. Instead, this question is asking us to affirm the argument. This is exactly the type of answer we have been taught to disqualify since it just restates the stimulus. I feel as if the strategies I'm learning worked against me.
If something is harmful to something else, preventing it can either cause progress, or have no effect whatsoever.
So: A doesn´t totally reinforce the arguments assumption.
ARGUMENT´S ASSUMPTION:
preventing X -> is conducive to Y
AND ANSWER (A) STATES:
that X -> causes harm to Y,
THIS DOESN´T RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF:
preventing X -> has no effect on Y. (preventing Major incidents of scientific fraud has no effect on progress)
So the assumption that the argument uses is only slightly strengthened, not totally. I see no other way of doing this question besides a dubious POE. if anyone can clarify it would be greatly appreciated !
207 comments
I must admit, I am pretty impressed with myself.
I read the question stem and was like "Ok, this is a strengthen question. I know what I have to do." Digest the stem, get a good understanding and totally get my pre-phrase so I am ready to rock and roll.
Sure enough, I did a perfect weaken pre-phrase which too me to D. The answer even said this would weaken!
Today I learned that not using a thesaurus more often will have a deleterious impact on my score
me and analogy questions are not friends lol
this question is deleterious to my mental health
[This comment was deleted.]
@r.ojina if you don't know what conducive means by the time you complete college idek bro. you gotta read a book
@GordonGianadda Shaming someone for asking a question is pathetic. If someone is willing to learn, what's the problem? Why even bother commenting that?
shaking my fist at the air
freakin' vocab
had to look up what conducive and deleterious both mean.. ended up getting the question right but took me almost 6 min lol. looks like i need to widen my vocabulary
I was so thrown off by the word deleterious
@MarcosGuzman415 same lol
Nothing spikes my dopamine more than getting a level 5 question right
Well. Learned ''deleterious'' as well as ''conducive'' meanings :) a win is a win
@TeklaCo I was reading a book about an hour before this study session and whenever I run into a word I don't know, I'll stop write it down in a small notebook and look up the definition. Deleterious was that word!
I got this right and was so confident about it - just to have a different way of getting the answer (hopefully that's still a good thing...).
Process of elimination works wonders, of course. But I also thought A strengthened the analogy that fraud in physics and fraud in biology worked relatively similar, because it broadens the topic to "scientific fraud" (and they both fall in this category). Or even biology and physics both fall within the "scientific discipline" category mentioned in A.
Is this a good way of thinking about this? Or is this sort of thought process not the best when it comes to these types of questions? Like maybe it worked because it was this specific stimulus?
@catintheLSAT I had the same thoughts and also got it right!
son im crine ts was the easiest question ever I immediately read it and was like: who said anything about progress being hindered by fraud?
@sarahbalfoul im crine XD
got it tight in blind review :(
I'm sorry, DELETIRIOUS???? bsfr rn
I feel like now Lawgic is holding me back in answering questions quickly- remembering how to break down the stimulus takes more time than doing lawgic in my head/recognizing patterns but not mentally categorizing it in my head.
@Sidly I feel like breaking down the stimulus into Lawgic is only helpful in formal logic, which this stimulus is not. I only really make a point to think about Lawgic or write it down on stimuli that have many conditional relationships. With stimuli on these ones, I just focus on translating in my head through all the grammar and understanding what the premises and conclusions are really saying.
Saw the word "delete" and knew where that one was going lol
I got ths right but i had to look up what the hell deleterious meant lol
@Gabero123 Same, feels weird to get a level five right, after i got a level one question wrong.
No way I got this right and not the other lower difficultly questions. I think my brain is fried.
I think understanding why the correct answer is the correct answer would've been easier if I had tackled this question as a sufficient assumption.
I got this one right!! Is this really a level 5 question?!
I identified this as a support question immediately, so I was looking for support. Instead, this question is asking us to affirm the argument. This is exactly the type of answer we have been taught to disqualify since it just restates the stimulus. I feel as if the strategies I'm learning worked against me.
A was my first choice but I genuinely didn't know what deleterious meant
@madameatt13ke literally the same for me. Had it selected then chose B cuz idk what deleterious meant, got it on blind review tho
I’m cooking tysm
If something is harmful to something else, preventing it can either cause progress, or have no effect whatsoever.
So: A doesn´t totally reinforce the arguments assumption.
ARGUMENT´S ASSUMPTION:
preventing X -> is conducive to Y
AND ANSWER (A) STATES:
that X -> causes harm to Y,
THIS DOESN´T RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF:
preventing X -> has no effect on Y. (preventing Major incidents of scientific fraud has no effect on progress)
So the assumption that the argument uses is only slightly strengthened, not totally. I see no other way of doing this question besides a dubious POE. if anyone can clarify it would be greatly appreciated !
Ok, that was harder, I immediately disreguarded A and had to go back to it because it seemed too simple, but I got it right. A min and half over. Ugh.