so principle and rule can be used interchangeably in the lsat? If a question asks which principle best justifies the conclusion, can we replace principle with rule if we want?
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?
I think they are very similar, like you mentioned. The way I visualize it is finding the missing block to the chain that would make the pseudo assumption as airtight as possible, given the answer choices you're given.
I think it mostly has to do with a greater focus on conditional logic instead of causal logic or argument from analogy. Lots of the questions seem like if X, then Y, then Z, but in the question it will be Stimulus: X happened then Z happened, Question: Choose the appropriate Y.
#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
going to take a swing at this and if anyone can better explain it, please chime in.
for WSE questions, using causal logic, the premises (or phenomenon) or linked by causation to the conclusion (or hypothesis).
for example, dolphins are turning up dead on the shores. a new chemical factory just opened up three months ago. so locals hypothesize that the chemical factory is releasing harmful chemicals into the water and killing dolphins.
(lame example but just roll with it)
the phenomena are linked by causation to get to the local hypothesis and depending on the type of question (weaken or strengthen), the question stem will ask us to improve or disprove this causation. that is how we would use casual logic. (the argument would look a little different for an explain/resolve question but it still relies on causal logic.
for PSA questions, we're not relying on causation and causal logic. we're going to be relying on rules and application. these rules would have already been established in the stimulus (if the question stem is looking for the application) or the rule would have been in implied in the stimulus, with the application already also in the stimulus (and the question stem would be asking for the answer choice that makes the implicit rule, explicit).
i hope this makes some sense and if i got anything wrong, hopefully someone can correct me
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?
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.
28 comments
so principle and rule can be used interchangeably in the lsat? If a question asks which principle best justifies the conclusion, can we replace principle with rule if we want?
no video?
I hope I'm not speaking too soon, but I think this might be my favorite question type.
@murdock.real it's the opposite for me (,:
@murdock.real SAME it's giving IRAC.
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?
I think they are very similar, like you mentioned. The way I visualize it is finding the missing block to the chain that would make the pseudo assumption as airtight as possible, given the answer choices you're given.
I think they are essentially the same thing. Assumption/rule finding questions are just stronger versions.
I think it mostly has to do with a greater focus on conditional logic instead of causal logic or argument from analogy. Lots of the questions seem like if X, then Y, then Z, but in the question it will be Stimulus: X happened then Z happened, Question: Choose the appropriate Y.
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.
Emphasizing this!! #feedback
YESSSS!!!!! Emphasizing!
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
going to take a swing at this and if anyone can better explain it, please chime in.
for WSE questions, using causal logic, the premises (or phenomenon) or linked by causation to the conclusion (or hypothesis).
for example, dolphins are turning up dead on the shores. a new chemical factory just opened up three months ago. so locals hypothesize that the chemical factory is releasing harmful chemicals into the water and killing dolphins.
(lame example but just roll with it)
the phenomena are linked by causation to get to the local hypothesis and depending on the type of question (weaken or strengthen), the question stem will ask us to improve or disprove this causation. that is how we would use casual logic. (the argument would look a little different for an explain/resolve question but it still relies on causal logic.
for PSA questions, we're not relying on causation and causal logic. we're going to be relying on rules and application. these rules would have already been established in the stimulus (if the question stem is looking for the application) or the rule would have been in implied in the stimulus, with the application already also in the stimulus (and the question stem would be asking for the answer choice that makes the implicit rule, explicit).
i hope this makes some sense and if i got anything wrong, hopefully someone can correct me
great job man!
Genghis did a whole lot of trespassing in his day
lol best comment
lol all over two continents
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
No but I am now lol
JY flexin that 7sage salary ;)
#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
I think they want you to review strengthening again first since PSA is a subset of strengthening