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.
Reiterating for my own learning purpose- In question 5, the sentence "But this is not a a sustainable, long term solution." Is a premise to the conclusion, "...they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.", because it is a statement with no direct support and contributes to the reasoning of the conclusion.
Is Question 5 "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" representative of a premise? I put intermediary conclusion/subconclusion for this line.
The first one confused me a bit because it looks like the context needs contexts. It starts off with 'if these new policies" and I asked myself when I was done reading what new policies?
Question 3 threw me off since it just seems to be a description of how the monkeys are rather than it asserting a claim relating to the monkeys cleverness. Did anyone else struggle with this question? Is there a way apart from the indicator words that is effective at identifying the conclusion/claim of the passage? #help #feedback
I am so confused to the first questions, why or how is the teacher's opinion the conclusion as opposed to the stating fact of student's being able to access their file if the policies are approved....
I am not seeing how that is he conclusion and how that is the context info
The conclusion threw me off a bit because of where it was stated. Almost did not sound like an argument but I can finally see it.
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!
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.
308 comments
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.
I thought the same thing too! The video breakdown helped me understand it further.
5/5!!!!!
Reiterating for my own learning purpose- In question 5, the sentence "But this is not a a sustainable, long term solution." Is a premise to the conclusion, "...they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.", because it is a statement with no direct support and contributes to the reasoning of the conclusion.
5 tripped me up. I thought it had 2 conclusions. the first main one being the sustainable long term, and the sub being the last sentence.
5/5!!! 🤫🧏♂️
Is Question 5 "But this is not a sustainable, long term solution" representative of a premise? I put intermediary conclusion/subconclusion for this line.
#Feedback - Let us edit a note once it's posted in our notes
The first one confused me a bit because it looks like the context needs contexts. It starts off with 'if these new policies" and I asked myself when I was done reading what new policies?
For question 1, wouldn't "as a teacher" also be context?
Question 3 threw me off since it just seems to be a description of how the monkeys are rather than it asserting a claim relating to the monkeys cleverness. Did anyone else struggle with this question? Is there a way apart from the indicator words that is effective at identifying the conclusion/claim of the passage? #help #feedback
Question 5 was a bit tricky, but I get it
I am so confused to the first questions, why or how is the teacher's opinion the conclusion as opposed to the stating fact of student's being able to access their file if the policies are approved....
I am not seeing how that is he conclusion and how that is the context info
The conclusion threw me off a bit because of where it was stated. Almost did not sound like an argument but I can finally see it.