Regarding Question 5, is "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" premise also could be considered as a sub-conclusion? Making this a complex argument?
Did anyone else think about Question 1 like this? Context: If these new policies are approved, students will soon be able to freely access their academic records.
Conclusion: However, as a teacher, I believe this would be a blunder.
Major premise/Sub conclusion: First, allowing students full access to their academic records might distract teachers from more significant responsibilities
Minor premise: as they have to organize and provide files.
Major premise: Second, based on my experiences, I've noticed that most students don't express the desire to access their records in the first place.
I see a lot of people getting tripped up on question 5 — debating on how it is a premise and not a sub-conclusion. I was as well, and this is how I broke it down to understand it.
A statement is a sub-conclusion only if the author argues for it and then also uses it to support something else. (It both gives and receives support)
“This is not a sustainable, long-term solution” is a premise because the author never gives a reason why it’s true — it’s just asserted. (It is used to support another statement and not supported by anything else in the stimulus)
Even if a statement helps explain the conclusion, it’s still a premise unless it is also supported by another claim.
I still feel that "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution" is an IC because it's getting support from the next sentence which says they haven't devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan". Isn't recycling/disposal plan support that it doesn't have a SUSTAINABLE plan?
{The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.} [But this is not a sustainable, long term solution]. (Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,) [they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]
So Q5, "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" - is this not a subsidiary conclusion supporting the main conclusion? And is it not also supported by the premise "Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,"
To the last point that was made, I wish I had that advice sooner, or rather, I wish I would have taken it more seriously. In the old curriculum I focused WAY TOO MUCH on trying to understand weakening questions on the Logical Reasoning (LR) sections. I spent so much time on trying to understand them that I severely hurt my LSAT score earlier this year. A majority of my LR stuff I understood, and I was actually significantly better at strengthening questions than weakening questions (despite how similar they really are). Do not make my mistake. It is OK to not grasp something 100% when going through the lessons, that's what drills are for, and as was said, flag them and return to them later.
For question #5, I had the following: Context: The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards. Premise: Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan Sub-Conclusion: this is not a sustainable, long term solution Conclusion: they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately
May someone please tell me if what’s being identified as a premise in this exercise may also serve as a sub-conclusion? Reason being, the way I parceled out this argument was that ‘since none of them devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan, this isn’t a sustainable, long-term solution; therefore, they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately’.
For the most part, will the context of an argument usually be at the beginning of the question? I'm slightly struggling to differentiate premise from the conclusion.
For Q1: is "allowing students full access to their academic records might distract teachers from more significant responsibilities" also considered to be a minor Conclusion?
Why?
Because, "They have to organize and provide files." Which makes it a premise to the minor conclusion.
Question 3 threw me off because I feel like part of the first sentence is a premise more than context.
0
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.
329 comments
Wow. I am really bad at this.
Regarding Question 5, is "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" premise also could be considered as a sub-conclusion? Making this a complex argument?
4/5. Got tripped up on Q5 and thought there were two conclusions.
Did anyone else think about Question 1 like this? Context: If these new policies are approved, students will soon be able to freely access their academic records.
Conclusion: However, as a teacher, I believe this would be a blunder.
Major premise/Sub conclusion: First, allowing students full access to their academic records might distract teachers from more significant responsibilities
Minor premise: as they have to organize and provide files.
Major premise: Second, based on my experiences, I've noticed that most students don't express the desire to access their records in the first place.
Can there be 2 conclusions in one argument?
Questions 4 & 5 are the same for me?
5/5 ! Woo Hoo!
Can context also be a premise as well? On question 3 the context seems to support the premise (and conclusion).
5/5! I feel hopeful! My next study day I am going to go back and practice all these problems again from previous topics.
5/5 let's gooooo we are in this together
4/5... I am getting better with content but I am still slow with speed.
I see a lot of people getting tripped up on question 5 — debating on how it is a premise and not a sub-conclusion. I was as well, and this is how I broke it down to understand it.
A statement is a sub-conclusion only if the author argues for it and then also uses it to support something else. (It both gives and receives support)
“This is not a sustainable, long-term solution” is a premise because the author never gives a reason why it’s true — it’s just asserted. (It is used to support another statement and not supported by anything else in the stimulus)
Even if a statement helps explain the conclusion, it’s still a premise unless it is also supported by another claim.
Feel free to disagree or explain another way!
5/5 LFG
I got 4/5, I missed the first one but got the other 4 correct, I have hope!!
I still feel that "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution" is an IC because it's getting support from the next sentence which says they haven't devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan". Isn't recycling/disposal plan support that it doesn't have a SUSTAINABLE plan?
I feel that question 5 contains a sub-conclusion.
My markup is as follows:
{Context}
(Premise)
[Conclusion]
{The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.} [But this is not a sustainable, long term solution]. (Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,) [they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]
Please share your thoughts.
So Q5, "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" - is this not a subsidiary conclusion supporting the main conclusion? And is it not also supported by the premise "Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,"
To the last point that was made, I wish I had that advice sooner, or rather, I wish I would have taken it more seriously. In the old curriculum I focused WAY TOO MUCH on trying to understand weakening questions on the Logical Reasoning (LR) sections. I spent so much time on trying to understand them that I severely hurt my LSAT score earlier this year. A majority of my LR stuff I understood, and I was actually significantly better at strengthening questions than weakening questions (despite how similar they really are). Do not make my mistake. It is OK to not grasp something 100% when going through the lessons, that's what drills are for, and as was said, flag them and return to them later.
For question #5, I had the following: Context: The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards. Premise: Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan Sub-Conclusion: this is not a sustainable, long term solution Conclusion: they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately
May someone please tell me if what’s being identified as a premise in this exercise may also serve as a sub-conclusion? Reason being, the way I parceled out this argument was that ‘since none of them devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan, this isn’t a sustainable, long-term solution; therefore, they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately’.
For the most part, will the context of an argument usually be at the beginning of the question? I'm slightly struggling to differentiate premise from the conclusion.
Thanks (Narrator) for the encouragement. As a studious perfectionist, I would have spent unnecessary time trying to master this.
yay 5/5! :)
For question 5, what would make the premise "but this is not a sustainable, long term solution" a conclusion?
For Q1: is "allowing students full access to their academic records might distract teachers from more significant responsibilities" also considered to be a minor Conclusion?
Why?
Because, "They have to organize and provide files." Which makes it a premise to the minor conclusion.
Or I'm just over analysing things in my head?
Question 3 threw me off because I feel like part of the first sentence is a premise more than context.