can i quickly ask if anyone happens to know off the top of their head, how is the rule-application/pseudo assumption question different from the previous general strengthening questions where they tell us that one way to strengthen the question is to state an assumption the question hinges on being true but doesn't explicitly state? Is this just asking for a more targeted version of that?
#feedback It would be great if these lessons were broken down in video format to read along with, rather than just in type format. Looking at these diagrams without walkthrough explanation doesn't do me any favors.
Can anyone explain how this is so different from using causal logic and dealing with WSE questions? I can’t grasp how it’s different conceptually and JY often points to how different these “feel”.. I do not feel it lol
I am slightly confused... if someone could please provide clarity it would be greatly appreciated!
In the previous lesson, the diagram labeled as Causal Logic (Hypothesis) with Resolve at the top and then it went down to Weaken. Under the Weaken portion I have (Causal Logic with Alternative Hypothesis, Ideal Experiment, & Corroborating Data) all pointing toward Weaken. Then it goes down to Strengthen and the Causal Logic I have ( Cost Benefit Reasoning, Reasoning By Analogy, & Rule-Application). At that time I was under the impression that each of those sets coordinates with the either Weaken or Strengthen. However, in this diagram it now displays each plus more under Strengthen. Did I interpret it wrong initially by mentally separating because they aligned with either Weaken or Strengthen? When in fact, any of the possibilities could fall under either one?
#help This seems to be out of order. This should be at the start of the chapter
7
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.
24 comments
I hope I'm not speaking too soon, but I think this might be my favorite question type.
can i quickly ask if anyone happens to know off the top of their head, how is the rule-application/pseudo assumption question different from the previous general strengthening questions where they tell us that one way to strengthen the question is to state an assumption the question hinges on being true but doesn't explicitly state? Is this just asking for a more targeted version of that?
When you go hunting for the rule in the answer choices, is it fair to say you're also looking for an assumption?
#feedback It would be great if these lessons were broken down in video format to read along with, rather than just in type format. Looking at these diagrams without walkthrough explanation doesn't do me any favors.
We like this one
Can anyone explain how this is so different from using causal logic and dealing with WSE questions? I can’t grasp how it’s different conceptually and JY often points to how different these “feel”.. I do not feel it lol
Genghis did a whole lot of trespassing in his day
I am slightly confused... if someone could please provide clarity it would be greatly appreciated!
In the previous lesson, the diagram labeled as Causal Logic (Hypothesis) with Resolve at the top and then it went down to Weaken. Under the Weaken portion I have (Causal Logic with Alternative Hypothesis, Ideal Experiment, & Corroborating Data) all pointing toward Weaken. Then it goes down to Strengthen and the Causal Logic I have ( Cost Benefit Reasoning, Reasoning By Analogy, & Rule-Application). At that time I was under the impression that each of those sets coordinates with the either Weaken or Strengthen. However, in this diagram it now displays each plus more under Strengthen. Did I interpret it wrong initially by mentally separating because they aligned with either Weaken or Strengthen? When in fact, any of the possibilities could fall under either one?
There are no stem examples for PSAa #feedback
anyone else google Balmuda toasters? lol
#feedback can you link "WSE lessons" so I can get a quick recap?
#help This seems to be out of order. This should be at the start of the chapter