@Disney I watch if I get wrong or don't understand why I understand the answer. If I know why I got it sometimes I'll skip and sometimes I'll go over the explanation picture to look at the explanation and breakdown in writing forms. If im lost all together I'll look at both.
@Disney I like to re-open the question and toggle the option to "show analysis" of the stim. Then, I see if that's enough to help me understand why I missed something or confirm that I at least interpret the stim correctly. Then, I click on the lightbulbs to see the explanation for the answer choices that I chose or were stuck on. This also helps me confirm that I eliminated certain answers for the right reasons!
If that is not enough, I like to watch when I get it wrong or don't understand. But once I confirm I eliminated some answers correctly and for the right reasons, I only watch the explanation of the stim and the answer I chose + the correct answer.
Sometimes I skim the typed out explanation to see if anything is bolded (i.e. important) to takeaway.
I get now why E is correct, but the explanation for B is still not my favorite thing. Strongly focuses on arbitrary assumption that 65 is current speed limit. 75 is in many parts of the country. To me it wasn't as obvious as you're making it seem that the law was already applied was assumed in B. But I guess that's what I'm here to learn
If it helps anyone this is how this clicked for me:
The premise says: increased speed limit ---> lower accident rate
E is correct because it BRIDGES the premise and the conclusion. The lower accident rate is relevant because this is the whole point of why the speed increase is happening to begin with. This wouldn't be applied elsewhere if this wasn't the reason.
Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.
@arieatsoranges I think it's because of the necessary condition (only if). So,
Uniform speed implemented --> roadways have roughly equal average speeds
To me, this reads backwards. We want the outcome to be uniform speeds implemented. (I think, lol idk)
Also, I thought about it without lawgic and to me, the premise doesn't say the average speed IS 75mph. It says that it TENDS to be 75mph. So, that was another reason why I thought C was wrong. Sorry if this is convoluted. I hope it helped somehow!
i dont get it, isnt "any" extreme? what if we could reduce the rate of traffic by some illogical way, like making the law that you cant have pets? should it still be implemented? e feels too broad
@ktacklesthelsat in this kind of question, we get to assume that the principles in the answer choices are valid. so we don't have to like them--we just have to figure out if they help justify the conclusion in the stimulus. choice E is probably a dumb rule, but if valid, it justifies the conclusion, so it's correct. hope that helps!
The conclusion that was reached was to reduce traffic accidents, which is supported by raising the speed limit to 75, which has nothing to do with uniform traffic rules to all roadways; ughhh looked completely over that first sentence...
I accept E as the answer. However, for my enrichment, how does it support the idea that the measures should be implemented universally? Does it lie within its over-inclusiveness? To me, all E says is to implement rules, but universally? Is it an assumption we have to make?
I think I understand what you are asking, but if I misunderstood sorry. Okay so say we have the rule "Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented." We could take a look at Nebraska, should we implement it there? Yep. Take a look at Kansas, should we implement it? Yep. Keep going until we have reached every single place that falls within our domain of high speed straight roadways. We will then find that we have attempted to enact that measure universally, i.e. everywhere that falls under our domain. Does that make sense?
@aldertree00644 Where I am confused is that there is an assumption with the application of that rule because we're saying: Roadways are safer if the average speed is adopted as the speed limit for that road. But when I apply the rule (E) to roads in Nebraska maybe I measure the average speed at 70 mph making the 75 mph speed limit too fast. But then I go to Kansas and I measure the average speed at 80 mph. I know the question explicitly says that the national average is 75 mph but does that discount the microcosms of higher/lower average speeds on all roads of the same type?
was having a hard time finding the assumption in this one but realized that that meant I probably already assumed it. that's what led me to E!
There were no gaps in the language anywhere else - everything else seemed straightforward. We of course are programmed to think that we should do anything to reduce accidents, but that is still an assumption.
Misread the last sentence in the stimulus where it said the law should apply to all roads... I read all high-speed roads and immediately chose A. Once I re-read just a bit slower I got the right answer. Rookie mistake!
I was kinda surprised that people found this question so difficult.
What I did was is to find a conclusion in the stimulus, as JY always says, and then try to connect it with the premises. Which brings the question, why exactly we should do that?
You may have probably assumed in your head that everything that brings public good should be implemented, and, therefore, missed that part.
#help Still a tad bit confused why A isn't right. To me, the stimulus says "all such roadways" which seemed to be referencing the high-speed level, straight stretches of road only. Am I misunderstanding that?
I don't think you're misunderstanding that part, but I think you have to take it a step further. Yes, all high-speed level, straight stretches of road should have a speed limit of 75 mph, BUT WHY? When the question stem says "justify", that is not just understanding nor restating the passage's conclusion (which is kind of what A is doing, except that A also uses the word "only" and the passage doesn't include nor exclude other types of roads so "only" makes this answer choice irrelevant), but rather explaining WHY they came to that conclusion. And it says in the first sentence of the passage, "A government study indicates that raising speed limits to reflect.....reduces the accident rate".
You are trying to justify why this information "raising the speed will decrease the number of accidents" should be applied. A simply tells you in which cases this new rule should be applied, not why. Only E gives the reader a reason to implement the new policy. If all policies that reduce accident rates should be implemented, and this policy reduced accident rates, then this policy should be implemented.
E supports the conclusion in a way A does not. If we have only 2 pieces of info, raising speed limits reduces accidents (premise from the stim), and uniform speed limits should only be applied to high speed roadways (answer A) it does not follow that the rule should be implemented. You would need to assume that the policy makers goal is to reduced accidents, which is exactly what E says. That is why E is corrects and A is not.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
134 comments
28 seconds to spare BOOM
Very surprised when I saw the difficulty level for this question. Got it right with 25 seconds to spare.
Wtf!!
i got every single one right up to this point. fml
@yam Same
Lol. Makes sense.
I always feel so dumb after I hear the explanation lol
do you guys watch the explanations or read them instead? cannot figure which is better?
@Disney I watch if I get wrong or don't understand why I understand the answer. If I know why I got it sometimes I'll skip and sometimes I'll go over the explanation picture to look at the explanation and breakdown in writing forms. If im lost all together I'll look at both.
@JosephTrischitta thank you!
@Disney I like to re-open the question and toggle the option to "show analysis" of the stim. Then, I see if that's enough to help me understand why I missed something or confirm that I at least interpret the stim correctly. Then, I click on the lightbulbs to see the explanation for the answer choices that I chose or were stuck on. This also helps me confirm that I eliminated certain answers for the right reasons!
If that is not enough, I like to watch when I get it wrong or don't understand. But once I confirm I eliminated some answers correctly and for the right reasons, I only watch the explanation of the stim and the answer I chose + the correct answer.
Sometimes I skim the typed out explanation to see if anything is bolded (i.e. important) to takeaway.
Ohh I misread that. I was like "there's no way it's E"
I get now why E is correct, but the explanation for B is still not my favorite thing. Strongly focuses on arbitrary assumption that 65 is current speed limit. 75 is in many parts of the country. To me it wasn't as obvious as you're making it seem that the law was already applied was assumed in B. But I guess that's what I'm here to learn
I was on a role then got the last two wrong :(((((
@EricaFuentes same bruh smh
yayay got it right! Almost fell for B, but E made the most logical sense:)
If it helps anyone this is how this clicked for me:
The premise says: increased speed limit ---> lower accident rate
E is correct because it BRIDGES the premise and the conclusion. The lower accident rate is relevant because this is the whole point of why the speed increase is happening to begin with. This wouldn't be applied elsewhere if this wasn't the reason.
@GabrielleRothstein thanks for this
Can someone break down why C is wrong in their own language, preferably using lawgic? Thinking I might have to review sufficiency/necessary conditions.
@arieatsoranges I think it's because of the necessary condition (only if). So,
Uniform speed implemented --> roadways have roughly equal average speeds
To me, this reads backwards. We want the outcome to be uniform speeds implemented. (I think, lol idk)
Also, I thought about it without lawgic and to me, the premise doesn't say the average speed IS 75mph. It says that it TENDS to be 75mph. So, that was another reason why I thought C was wrong. Sorry if this is convoluted. I hope it helped somehow!
@arieatsoranges Where does the author speak about equal speeds? The heart of the argument is
reduction speed level -> less accidents
so the rule is that implementing a speed limit (or a rule) results in less accidents
therefore, E
i dont get it, isnt "any" extreme? what if we could reduce the rate of traffic by some illogical way, like making the law that you cant have pets? should it still be implemented? e feels too broad
@ktacklesthelsat in this kind of question, we get to assume that the principles in the answer choices are valid. so we don't have to like them--we just have to figure out if they help justify the conclusion in the stimulus. choice E is probably a dumb rule, but if valid, it justifies the conclusion, so it's correct. hope that helps!
The phrase is "beside the point" not besides
ugh changed from E to C, i was contemplating the obviousness with E
Sorta interesting that this a level 4 question but that the 75th percentile is so high (180).
@visschdawg I thought that too. Seems like a very weird stat for a reasonably straightforward question
The conclusion that was reached was to reduce traffic accidents, which is supported by raising the speed limit to 75, which has nothing to do with uniform traffic rules to all roadways; ughhh looked completely over that first sentence...
@akashpreetriar This is was the most straight forward explanation. Thank you for this.
I accept E as the answer. However, for my enrichment, how does it support the idea that the measures should be implemented universally? Does it lie within its over-inclusiveness? To me, all E says is to implement rules, but universally? Is it an assumption we have to make?
I think I understand what you are asking, but if I misunderstood sorry. Okay so say we have the rule "Any measure that reduces the rate of traffic accidents should be implemented." We could take a look at Nebraska, should we implement it there? Yep. Take a look at Kansas, should we implement it? Yep. Keep going until we have reached every single place that falls within our domain of high speed straight roadways. We will then find that we have attempted to enact that measure universally, i.e. everywhere that falls under our domain. Does that make sense?
@aldertree00644 Where I am confused is that there is an assumption with the application of that rule because we're saying: Roadways are safer if the average speed is adopted as the speed limit for that road. But when I apply the rule (E) to roads in Nebraska maybe I measure the average speed at 70 mph making the 75 mph speed limit too fast. But then I go to Kansas and I measure the average speed at 80 mph. I know the question explicitly says that the national average is 75 mph but does that discount the microcosms of higher/lower average speeds on all roads of the same type?
was having a hard time finding the assumption in this one but realized that that meant I probably already assumed it. that's what led me to E!
There were no gaps in the language anywhere else - everything else seemed straightforward. We of course are programmed to think that we should do anything to reduce accidents, but that is still an assumption.
Misread the last sentence in the stimulus where it said the law should apply to all roads... I read all high-speed roads and immediately chose A. Once I re-read just a bit slower I got the right answer. Rookie mistake!
Was feeling so confident and quickly got humbled rip
I was kinda surprised that people found this question so difficult.
What I did was is to find a conclusion in the stimulus, as JY always says, and then try to connect it with the premises. Which brings the question, why exactly we should do that?
You may have probably assumed in your head that everything that brings public good should be implemented, and, therefore, missed that part.
bro i don't think this is about logic
i knew it was E immediately but thought it eas too simple and went with B
I just did the exact same thing :(
@ebimoshiri03 Kinda same, I got so tripped up by the high speed and regular roads
#help Still a tad bit confused why A isn't right. To me, the stimulus says "all such roadways" which seemed to be referencing the high-speed level, straight stretches of road only. Am I misunderstanding that?
I don't think you're misunderstanding that part, but I think you have to take it a step further. Yes, all high-speed level, straight stretches of road should have a speed limit of 75 mph, BUT WHY? When the question stem says "justify", that is not just understanding nor restating the passage's conclusion (which is kind of what A is doing, except that A also uses the word "only" and the passage doesn't include nor exclude other types of roads so "only" makes this answer choice irrelevant), but rather explaining WHY they came to that conclusion. And it says in the first sentence of the passage, "A government study indicates that raising speed limits to reflect.....reduces the accident rate".
You are trying to justify why this information "raising the speed will decrease the number of accidents" should be applied. A simply tells you in which cases this new rule should be applied, not why. Only E gives the reader a reason to implement the new policy. If all policies that reduce accident rates should be implemented, and this policy reduced accident rates, then this policy should be implemented.
E supports the conclusion in a way A does not. If we have only 2 pieces of info, raising speed limits reduces accidents (premise from the stim), and uniform speed limits should only be applied to high speed roadways (answer A) it does not follow that the rule should be implemented. You would need to assume that the policy makers goal is to reduced accidents, which is exactly what E says. That is why E is corrects and A is not.