was able to eliminate bait answers by seeing what assumptions or inferences were drawn that weren't mentioned (anything that's even remotely a stretch is ruled out, thus voiding the choice)
Could there ever be a possibility that the correct answer choice has the rule written in contrapositive form? Or are the answers truly always going to follow the general pattern from the stimulus?
@AlizaGGG The coverage receiving criticism is the context (or you could say a counterargument), but not a premise in support of the argument that the coverage was good journalism. The video is just mapping out the premise therefore conclusion structure :)
#help - Where did I go wrong here. I now understand why C is correct (I originally misread it) but I'm still struggling to understand why E is wrong.
I interpreted the stimulus to be:
accurate + curious → Good Journalim
I kinda ignored the part about high viewership, maybe this is part of my error.
I interpreted E to be:
/(accurate or curious) -> /Good journalism
Using DeMorgan's law, I took the contrapositive of the OG stimulus to be the same thing that E was saying.
Did I incorrectly translate something into lawgic here? Or is the takeaway that if the actual argument is present as an AC, then that overrules the contrapositive of the original argument?
I put E too, took a break and came back to it and it was clear as day. C and E have the same structure, but in one being positive and the other negated flip their sufficiency and necessity. I think it's easier to see this if you take away demorgans law (which would just turn your 'Ands' into 'ors', negate, and flip) and just look at the necessary conditions like this:
C="Any Journalism that... (Insert sufficient conditions here)... is good journalism (necessary condition)
Which translates to:
(Stuff in the middle) → Good Journalism
The contra positive is
/Good Journalism → /(stuff in the middle)
E= "any Journalism that.... (insert sufficient conditions here)... is not good journalism"
(Stuff in the Middle) → /Good Journalism
Contra positive:
Good Journalism → /(Stuff in the middle)
This is how I had to look at it to understand that E does not give me a rule that tells me anything about what is sufficient for good journalism. It only tells me that good journalism is sufficient for whatever is in the middle. I need a set of rules that give me the outcome desired, which is the conclusion, which is that this was good journalism. Therefore, I need to know what is sufficient for good journalism, not what good journalism is sufficient for. E is wrong in form even without getting into the specifics. C is correct in form which means we need to look into the details.
Should we even be thinking about the contrapositive of the rule when going through the answers, or will the correct answer always (or at least usually) be a straightforward restatement of the rule? I feel like trying to hunt for the contrapositive would take up too much previous time
sometimes the correct answer will be the contrapositive of the rule to make it harder. Only consider it if you hunt and can't find the answer directly stated
My advice would be to get so familiar with contrapositives that seeing a conditional is the same thing as seeing a contrapositive. This only happens after a lot of drills that you most often create yourself. Otherwise the lsat will catch you lacking at one point or another. Additionally, often taking the contrapositive will not be very intuitive based on the specific wording (having to negate the word neither for example, it works but might be kinda confusing) and if you don't have extensive experience with contrapositives and negation this most likely either make you answer wrong or be a time sink. Moral of the story, contrapositives suck.
It is still just pseudo sufficient assumption questions, so we are not being held to absolute logical validity still. If it strengthens the argument through the use of a rule, even if it is just partial, it is still strengthening it. "Helps justify," it just has to "help"
In the video he mentions that you can have a subset of the premises met, so all the premises do not need to be met in order for the answer to be correct! :)
Are there correct answers where the answer is presented as it's contra-positive?
In other words answer choice C could be written as: It is not the case that journalism is good if it does not provide accurate information or is not of interest to the public.
E felt tempting in that respect, but I am following everything you're saying
I'm not sure whether there are correct answers where the answer is presented as the contrapositive. But I was also tempted by E until writing out the Lawgic and realizing that it confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions:
"never" is a negate necessary, so I negated "good journalism" and made it the necessary indicator.
/ satisfy curiosity + / info accurate --> / good journalism
contrapositive:
good journalism --> satisfy curiosity or info accurate
88 comments
I got it right, but when I broke it down to lawgic I got:
curiousity
accurate
good journalism
----------------------
Conclusion: Increase in Viewers
was starting to doubt myself but i went back on my answer and broke it apart in realizing on how it matches the stimulus. E was getting to me
PSAr question types are much easier than MBT and RRE questions lol I'm so happy I needed this boost
Diagrammed after getting the last one wrong with the S/N confusion. Got it!!
smh I need to stop skimming over the answer choices or at least slow down
YOU TOLD ME TO LOOK FOR CONTRAPOSITIVES
question. do we need all premises to be triggered? like here we only had 1 and 2 but not 3 in the rule.
These are way easier than WSE
I don't understand when he says "that (P) could be all or a subset of these facts" (referring to the stimulus). #help #confused
Got Emmmmmm Lets go!
honestly the prevous explaination helped a ton!
I second guessed myself because of “any journalism” :)
It's starting to click for PSA. AGTG!
Slow, but I got it right
I FELL FOR THE BAITTT NOOOOOOO (got it right in BR though) #yay
got it wrong initially, then answered C in the BR :/
Idk if i should be happy or not but I have been doing pretty good in this section as compare to others. Anyone else ?
@legallyhaya same!!
@legallyhaya Superman does good. You do well!!
Could there ever be a possibility that the correct answer choice has the rule written in contrapositive form? Or are the answers truly always going to follow the general pattern from the stimulus?
@frandyr This happens all the time -- be ready for it.
Why isn't "Coverage received Criticsm" one of the facts? I feel like it just dropped off
@AlizaGGG context
@AlizaGGG The coverage receiving criticism is the context (or you could say a counterargument), but not a premise in support of the argument that the coverage was good journalism. The video is just mapping out the premise therefore conclusion structure :)
#help - Where did I go wrong here. I now understand why C is correct (I originally misread it) but I'm still struggling to understand why E is wrong.
I interpreted the stimulus to be:
accurate + curious → Good Journalim
I kinda ignored the part about high viewership, maybe this is part of my error.
I interpreted E to be:
/(accurate or curious) -> /Good journalism
Using DeMorgan's law, I took the contrapositive of the OG stimulus to be the same thing that E was saying.
Did I incorrectly translate something into lawgic here? Or is the takeaway that if the actual argument is present as an AC, then that overrules the contrapositive of the original argument?
This is an interesting way to look at it, and it really clears up my confusion. I appreciate you writing it all out for me to see, thank you!
I put E too, took a break and came back to it and it was clear as day. C and E have the same structure, but in one being positive and the other negated flip their sufficiency and necessity. I think it's easier to see this if you take away demorgans law (which would just turn your 'Ands' into 'ors', negate, and flip) and just look at the necessary conditions like this:
C="Any Journalism that... (Insert sufficient conditions here)... is good journalism (necessary condition)
Which translates to:
(Stuff in the middle) → Good Journalism
The contra positive is
/Good Journalism → /(stuff in the middle)
E= "any Journalism that.... (insert sufficient conditions here)... is not good journalism"
(Stuff in the Middle) → /Good Journalism
Contra positive:
Good Journalism → /(Stuff in the middle)
This is how I had to look at it to understand that E does not give me a rule that tells me anything about what is sufficient for good journalism. It only tells me that good journalism is sufficient for whatever is in the middle. I need a set of rules that give me the outcome desired, which is the conclusion, which is that this was good journalism. Therefore, I need to know what is sufficient for good journalism, not what good journalism is sufficient for. E is wrong in form even without getting into the specifics. C is correct in form which means we need to look into the details.
3 for 3 chat lets goooooo
Should we even be thinking about the contrapositive of the rule when going through the answers, or will the correct answer always (or at least usually) be a straightforward restatement of the rule? I feel like trying to hunt for the contrapositive would take up too much previous time
Was wondering the exact same thing!
Me too-- I feel as if considering the contrapositive is misleading?
sometimes the correct answer will be the contrapositive of the rule to make it harder. Only consider it if you hunt and can't find the answer directly stated
My advice would be to get so familiar with contrapositives that seeing a conditional is the same thing as seeing a contrapositive. This only happens after a lot of drills that you most often create yourself. Otherwise the lsat will catch you lacking at one point or another. Additionally, often taking the contrapositive will not be very intuitive based on the specific wording (having to negate the word neither for example, it works but might be kinda confusing) and if you don't have extensive experience with contrapositives and negation this most likely either make you answer wrong or be a time sink. Moral of the story, contrapositives suck.
Do ALL THREE premises need to be met for the answer to be correct, or would just two be sufficient?
It is still just pseudo sufficient assumption questions, so we are not being held to absolute logical validity still. If it strengthens the argument through the use of a rule, even if it is just partial, it is still strengthening it. "Helps justify," it just has to "help"
In the video he mentions that you can have a subset of the premises met, so all the premises do not need to be met in order for the answer to be correct! :)
Are there correct answers where the answer is presented as it's contra-positive?
In other words answer choice C could be written as: It is not the case that journalism is good if it does not provide accurate information or is not of interest to the public.
E felt tempting in that respect, but I am following everything you're saying
I'm not sure whether there are correct answers where the answer is presented as the contrapositive. But I was also tempted by E until writing out the Lawgic and realizing that it confuses the sufficient and necessary conditions:
"never" is a negate necessary, so I negated "good journalism" and made it the necessary indicator.
/ satisfy curiosity + / info accurate --> / good journalism
contrapositive:
good journalism --> satisfy curiosity or info accurate
was thinking the same thing ... have you learned if there's ever an instance where the correct answer would be presented in the contrapositive form?