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!
Does a rule have to address all of the premises to "fully trigger" the sufficient condition and yield the conclusion or necessary condition? Like when JY talked about how answer choice C could have been right if it said "if an act is done with an intention to cause harm then it is wrong" it would have been right, even if it never addressed the premise knowing right from wrong... Im confused.
I still don't understand why both B and A aren't good answers. To my understanding, every factor of the 'A rule' can still be successfully applied to the argument. In other words, if checks all the boxes so why is it not good?
I don't understand how we were supposed to assume that the child intentionally caused harm. I thought we should be trying to prove intent to harm. The language did not say the intent was there; it said: "if." Maybe I am going about it wrong.
4
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.
67 comments
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
#help
Does a rule have to address all of the premises to "fully trigger" the sufficient condition and yield the conclusion or necessary condition? Like when JY talked about how answer choice C could have been right if it said "if an act is done with an intention to cause harm then it is wrong" it would have been right, even if it never addressed the premise knowing right from wrong... Im confused.
I can’t believe JY is asking us to intentionally harm a child what a silly man
I still don't understand why both B and A aren't good answers. To my understanding, every factor of the 'A rule' can still be successfully applied to the argument. In other words, if checks all the boxes so why is it not good?
I don't understand how we were supposed to assume that the child intentionally caused harm. I thought we should be trying to prove intent to harm. The language did not say the intent was there; it said: "if." Maybe I am going about it wrong.