Did anyone else have a hard time with question 3 as well? Question 5 was the most difficult for me, but his explanation makes sense! I (sort of) understand it now.
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,"
1
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.
345 comments
4 + 4 = i ate
Can one say that "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution." in question 5 is a sub conclusion/major premise?
Gosh, question 3 is hard lol. Got 4/5
5/5!!
hello,
Does context information are usually at the beginning of the arguments?
Did anyone else have a hard time with question 3 as well? Question 5 was the most difficult for me, but his explanation makes sense! I (sort of) understand it now.
This escalated quickly
That last one was a little odd. The context & conclusion were easy but calling those two parts premises made me raise an eyebrow.
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,"