Would it be right to eliminate answer choices that are long or short because they are either too detailed or too strict, such that the stimulus would not fit the principle, or because they over-restrict the stimulus?
To explain, the question stem already says that the child undestands the difference between right and wrong. What the rule pertains to includes that and IF he intended to injure the child. The only answer the satisfies (1) knowing right vs wrong (2) whether injury was an intentional act, is B.
Answer A doesn't satisfy because the child already understands the difference between right from wrong. Also is an action that intended to hurt someone only wrong if the person doesn't understand it??? No that doesn't make any sense.
So to confirm, based on answer C: You don't need all the facts in the stimulus to contribute to the sufficient condition for it to be correct, you just need the sufficient condition to be valid based on any number (some or all) of the facts present (assuming necessary is valid as well)?
Question about the methodology used here. Does "kicking up into the domain" not make these puzzles slightly harder since the wrong questions are eliminated through what specific parts of the rule they address?
For example, had I kicked "intentionality" up into the domain, I might have missed that B was the correct answer. Obviously that wouldnt have been a reasonable or wise detail to perform that operation on, but is it not possible that the theoretically correct answer could hinge on potentially any detail?
UGH! rip my streak. I was between A and B but ultimately picked A because it sounded stronger to me, but my gut told me it was confusing sufficiency for necessity. trust your gut folks!
I knew "only if" was going to come back to bite me
31
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.
71 comments
3/3 lookin good so far just waiting for the downfall lfg!!!
yyayaya got it right! These are kind of difficult, I need to practice more on these to get quicker:)
Would it be right to eliminate answer choices that are long or short because they are either too detailed or too strict, such that the stimulus would not fit the principle, or because they over-restrict the stimulus?
W's chat.
To explain, the question stem already says that the child undestands the difference between right and wrong. What the rule pertains to includes that and IF he intended to injure the child. The only answer the satisfies (1) knowing right vs wrong (2) whether injury was an intentional act, is B.
Answer A doesn't satisfy because the child already understands the difference between right from wrong. Also is an action that intended to hurt someone only wrong if the person doesn't understand it??? No that doesn't make any sense.
Hope this helps!
Ugh I chose B first then changed my answer to A
"You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"
Actually 7sage, I don't think I will.
These are giving me a headache
Before I even start this question, I want to acknowledge the drill title: "You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"
You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child
I'm gonna stop you right there 7Sage
these are too easy chat
I convinced myself A was the right answer by completely ignoring the only and treating it as "IF". Gotta pay attention!
not me getting triggered and distracted by the content lol
You Try-- Intentionally Harming a Child
...ok if you say so
So to confirm, based on answer C: You don't need all the facts in the stimulus to contribute to the sufficient condition for it to be correct, you just need the sufficient condition to be valid based on any number (some or all) of the facts present (assuming necessary is valid as well)?
"You Try -- Intentionally Harming a Child"
Don't encourage me man
B literally just rephrases the argument so I did not see how it justifies it
I got it correct!
Sipping wine while studying levels out my high blood pressure caused by these questions.
I thought B was the causation in the wrong direction, like if wrong, then must be XY and Z. I'll keep studying this later but I still am confused
4 KO streak Im on fire. lol yukkkkk
Question about the methodology used here. Does "kicking up into the domain" not make these puzzles slightly harder since the wrong questions are eliminated through what specific parts of the rule they address?
For example, had I kicked "intentionality" up into the domain, I might have missed that B was the correct answer. Obviously that wouldnt have been a reasonable or wise detail to perform that operation on, but is it not possible that the theoretically correct answer could hinge on potentially any detail?
UGH! rip my streak. I was between A and B but ultimately picked A because it sounded stronger to me, but my gut told me it was confusing sufficiency for necessity. trust your gut folks!
got it wrong on blind review, psyched myself out :(
i feel like my brain skipped over B because it was too perfect
I knew "only if" was going to come back to bite me