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.
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
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?
PSA question types have not humbled me yet like the S and W questions. Maybe it will humble me in the rest of the "you try". I understand the structure and even if my logic set is not strong enough I am intuitively able to grab the right answer. Is that bad or good?
I feel like it is good that you intuitively are able to grab the right answer. I feel like it shows that you have basic understanding of the foundations of the argument (premise and conclusion) and you are able to see where the gap is in regards to how which rule (answer) is applied to the question.
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)
@GeorgeGirgis I see how you could get there based on the structure of the stimulus! However, Furthermore is a premise indicator! Though "the newscast has more viewers than it normally does" is a conclusion, it's an intermediary conclusion supported by "people are curious" and then going on to further support "good journalism"
I have been rolling through this section. Would it be dumb of me to assume that a large majority of LSAT questions may consist of these type of assumption questions because of how long the section is (28 Lessons) and how many drill questions there are?
Not necessarily. In the 7-sage V1 curriculum when we got to necc. assumption questions there were over 20 drills (each of which were 5 question sets) yet on a given LSAT you would get anywhere from 3-5 N.A. questions. The volume of the drills is to help register the concepts and patterns so you can easily recognize those things during a timed section/exam.
92 comments
feeling very grateful for these PSAr questions after getting my butt whooped by WSE questions 🙏🏻
Amen
I like these questions. A good confidence boost following the WSE questions that consistently humbled me
Right there with you I feel like a lot of people struggled with that section especially the causal ones
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!!
I am seeing these questions will be my strong suit. I love the. Confidence going up little by little 😁
SAME
3 for 3 chat lets goooooo
This was the confidence boost I needed
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.
These are way easier than WSE
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?
I have a question! Can contrapositives be correct answers for these types of questions?
#help or would doing this be making too much of an assumption?
I have a question about this too!
Wondering this too
i think so. its the equivalent.
Absolutely, and in fact this is a common way the LSAT will try to make a question more difficult.
If "A --> B" can strengthen the argument, then "Not B --> Not A" can also strengthen the argument.
As a commenter below noted, the contrapositive expresses the same relationship as the initial statement. So if one helps, the other one will too.
Did this one in 40 seconds!
PSAr question types are much easier than MBT and RRE questions lol I'm so happy I needed this boost
I FELL FOR THE BAITTT NOOOOOOO (got it right in BR though) #yay
It's starting to click for PSA. AGTG!
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.
PSA question types have not humbled me yet like the S and W questions. Maybe it will humble me in the rest of the "you try". I understand the structure and even if my logic set is not strong enough I am intuitively able to grab the right answer. Is that bad or good?
I feel like it is good that you intuitively are able to grab the right answer. I feel like it shows that you have basic understanding of the foundations of the argument (premise and conclusion) and you are able to see where the gap is in regards to how which rule (answer) is applied to the question.
Yes exactly!! I think it is supernatural powers but better to think logic for harder questions. Thank you for the realization!
After getting the last few wrong, nailing this one in my fastest time yet was very rewarding! Lightbulb finally clicked on
YOU TOLD ME TO LOOK FOR CONTRAPOSITIVES
Slow, but I got it right
got it wrong initially, then answered C in the BR :/
I got it right, but when I broke it down to lawgic I got:
curiousity
accurate
good journalism
----------------------
Conclusion: Increase in Viewers
@GeorgeGirgis I see how you could get there based on the structure of the stimulus! However, Furthermore is a premise indicator! Though "the newscast has more viewers than it normally does" is a conclusion, it's an intermediary conclusion supported by "people are curious" and then going on to further support "good journalism"
smh I need to stop skimming over the answer choices or at least slow down
question. do we need all premises to be triggered? like here we only had 1 and 2 but not 3 in the rule.
I have been rolling through this section. Would it be dumb of me to assume that a large majority of LSAT questions may consist of these type of assumption questions because of how long the section is (28 Lessons) and how many drill questions there are?
Not necessarily. In the 7-sage V1 curriculum when we got to necc. assumption questions there were over 20 drills (each of which were 5 question sets) yet on a given LSAT you would get anywhere from 3-5 N.A. questions. The volume of the drills is to help register the concepts and patterns so you can easily recognize those things during a timed section/exam.