I keep confusing sufficiency and necessity in these questions.... and his explanation makes complete sense when I hear it but when I'm going through the questions myself I just keep making the same mistake. Any tips on how I can catch myself on this?
Not sure if this is 100% good practice, but I have found myself eliminating answer choices that say "Whether or not" because it's grammatically incorrect (you just need to say "whether"), and so far, it has worked every time.
Has anyone else done this or can attest/deny this method?
While I did get the answer right, I was definitely stuck between D and E for a second. For this question type I definitely have a hard time breaking down the stimulus proficiently.
#help Can someone please explain to me in a better way how B is a sufficiency/necessity confusion? I mean, I ended up picking E overall, but I don't fully understand how B is wrong.
I had it narrowed down to D and E. Ended up going with E because If D were true, there is no argument. The argument more or less says a lot of damage could have been prevented had they done something. Which is what E says. D, just says they are blameworthy regardless. Which may or may not be true; however, it was just not stated.
when i picked e in a timely manner. changed to b in BR. noticed properly the N and S conditions in both e and b, but somehow misplaced the N and B condition in the stimulus. my brain does not want to grasp on this concept for whatever reason. if anyone has a little like fun example or something to get this fundamental concept to stick in my brain would be greatly appreciated!!
I really appreciate the longer, more detailed video explanations in V2, but I also miss the concise “Let’s Review” portion that was at the end of the earlier V2 written lessons. #feedback
Sufficiency and Necessity, in a case like this, is confusing to me... When I see a question like this, I need to realize that the answers are so similar and then I need to figure out if the suff. and nece. are swapped.
I'm having trouble conceptualizing the inherent flaw in answer choice B (and other versions of it that show up in other questions). I didn't pick it, but I keep getting tempted by answers that go something along the lines of "X should only happen when Y," with Y being the premise(s) in the stimulus. In my mind, the phrase "manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions" feels inclusive of the situation in the stimulus?
I understand what JY is saying in the video, but I can't get the logic of why it's "backwards" to stick in my head. Does anyone else have a framework/way to think about it that they find more intuitive?
I got confused by the "innocent people" in answer E... I was thinking that innocent people would include non workers (people who live near the factory..etc) In answer A, I really didn't think paying medical bills is far from taking responsibility.
I'm a little confused, because in the earlier question about archeology, it had the answer in which it had the "only" assertion as the correct answer. However, for this question, the word only was used as a reason to prove B wrong. Can someone help me with this?
For the answer (A), isn't being compensated for medical bills the same as taking responsibility? You wouldn't pay someone else's medical bills if you weren't responsible. I think Im overthinking it.
Got this right at target time, but that blind review was painful. Really hard to distinguish between B and E. In my mind they both work for the prompt. Is it E because its a tighter fit? I thought that wasn't something that mattered for this type of question.
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.
47 comments
For D, i thought weakening questions will not attack the premise. Doesn't AC D do just that, yet the explanation still says it weakens?
average Industrial Revolution company management
Is it a reasonable assumption to make that the workers were innocent people?
so is it safe to always be wary when we see "only" in an answer choice for these questions?
I keep confusing sufficiency and necessity in these questions.... and his explanation makes complete sense when I hear it but when I'm going through the questions myself I just keep making the same mistake. Any tips on how I can catch myself on this?
Why am I still making the oldest mistake in the book!!!!!!!!!! Ugh so frustrating
God bless you, J.Y.#feedback
Not sure if this is 100% good practice, but I have found myself eliminating answer choices that say "Whether or not" because it's grammatically incorrect (you just need to say "whether"), and so far, it has worked every time.
Has anyone else done this or can attest/deny this method?
While I did get the answer right, I was definitely stuck between D and E for a second. For this question type I definitely have a hard time breaking down the stimulus proficiently.
#help Can someone please explain to me in a better way how B is a sufficiency/necessity confusion? I mean, I ended up picking E overall, but I don't fully understand how B is wrong.
"at least some"
"many of"
"E" infers that all the consequences were preventable. Is that the case based on the premises/argument?
I had it narrowed down to D and E. Ended up going with E because If D were true, there is no argument. The argument more or less says a lot of damage could have been prevented had they done something. Which is what E says. D, just says they are blameworthy regardless. Which may or may not be true; however, it was just not stated.
when i picked e in a timely manner. changed to b in BR. noticed properly the N and S conditions in both e and b, but somehow misplaced the N and B condition in the stimulus. my brain does not want to grasp on this concept for whatever reason. if anyone has a little like fun example or something to get this fundamental concept to stick in my brain would be greatly appreciated!!
I really appreciate the longer, more detailed video explanations in V2, but I also miss the concise “Let’s Review” portion that was at the end of the earlier V2 written lessons. #feedback
Do the last two words blink and jump around when you do the drill??
Can someone explain how to see the suff and nec in both answer B? just am missing how to see that with that wording
Sufficiency and Necessity, in a case like this, is confusing to me... When I see a question like this, I need to realize that the answers are so similar and then I need to figure out if the suff. and nece. are swapped.
I'm having trouble conceptualizing the inherent flaw in answer choice B (and other versions of it that show up in other questions). I didn't pick it, but I keep getting tempted by answers that go something along the lines of "X should only happen when Y," with Y being the premise(s) in the stimulus. In my mind, the phrase "manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions" feels inclusive of the situation in the stimulus?
I understand what JY is saying in the video, but I can't get the logic of why it's "backwards" to stick in my head. Does anyone else have a framework/way to think about it that they find more intuitive?
Almost fall for D..
translation of the stim:
many worker got ill because of t.
dunno know about t, but sitll should be responsible.
bc if the company investigated earlier, it is preventable.
preventable -> responsible
D: be responsible, whether preventable or not
E: preventable -> responsible
I got confused by the "innocent people" in answer E... I was thinking that innocent people would include non workers (people who live near the factory..etc) In answer A, I really didn't think paying medical bills is far from taking responsibility.
Did anyone else make the same mistake? ;(
I'm a little confused, because in the earlier question about archeology, it had the answer in which it had the "only" assertion as the correct answer. However, for this question, the word only was used as a reason to prove B wrong. Can someone help me with this?
For the answer (A), isn't being compensated for medical bills the same as taking responsibility? You wouldn't pay someone else's medical bills if you weren't responsible. I think Im overthinking it.
mans is so great at explaining these concepts but this handwriting is... atrocious J.Y. LOL still love you!!!!!!
#feedback is this a typo? "(2) harm in fact resulted to and's employees owing to the handling of such substance [...]"
Got this right at target time, but that blind review was painful. Really hard to distinguish between B and E. In my mind they both work for the prompt. Is it E because its a tighter fit? I thought that wasn't something that mattered for this type of question.