Do the contrapositive to better understand only if statements:
C: Use of a pesticide is acceptable only if it is used for its intended purpose and the pesticide has been shown not to harm any portion of the population.
Contra: if a pesticide is not used for its intended purpose or it has not been shown to be safe for the whole population, then its use is not acceptable. TMD hasn’t been shown to be safe for the whole population. So (C) supports the conclusion that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
Can someone help me understand why E was too general? Seems like the correct application especially since per capita consumption would be higher for children.
#help where did the stimulus say "TMD is a pesticide intended to be and actually used on peaches"?? it simply says "TMD is a pesticide used on peaches." we have no way of knowing what its intended use is -- it could have originally been INTENDED for apples when it was created but in practice USED on peaches. this doesn't make any sense to me.
Why was ‘only if ok in this PSA ? Is it because it lend support to the rule that supported the argument presented? I went against C because of it smh #feedback
Crossed off C because where the hell did its "intended purpose" come from? The right answer can just add on another variable that hasn't been mentioned before?
Okay, I did not chose C because in the previous lesson JY said 1) the correct AC must "end in the right place" (i.e., is the same conclusion/has the same meaning as the conclusion in the stimulus) and 2) that the conclusion must not be the sufficient condition. While this may (?) be true sometimes, I don't think it is reliable because the correct AC in this lesson broke both of these rules.
I think just knowing that the AC we're looking for will spit out the conclusion in the stimulus is the only way to go. Not much of a strategy because that's exactly what the question stem asks lolllll. Anyone else have another way of thinking about this question type?
I had it narrowed down to C,D,E. I could not decide which was the best until I made it into Lawgic format and it was obvious C was the correct answer. D and E did not even fall into the scope of my Lawgic.
Part of the reason that I chose the right answer was for different reasons than what JY listed. The correct AC is less limiting bc we aren't only talking about small children, we are also talking about 'others' and that was one of the reasons I dismissed the special obligations answer choice because it did not fully apply to the group we are trying to keep from known harm that consumes these peaches in larger amounts
I'm still confused about why the answer is choice C. Didn't the stimulus mention that the TMD shows no effects on human health when ingested? Albeit, the per capita amount blah blah blah. Are we supposed to assume that there may be harmful effects by eating more TMD than the average? Otherwise, it doesn't explicitly state that anyone has been harmed by ingesting the peaches, including children, so I thought that fulfills choice C's second necessary condition—that a pesticide is acceptable if it's "been shown not to harm any portion of the population." With all conditions met, the pesticide would be acceptable, and that's counter to the consumer advocate's argument.
Is anyone else just really struggling with sufficiency versus necessity in this context? I don't think I have missed so many practice questions consistently as I have in this lesson
These questions are taking me longer to answer but its because I double check every single answer to see if the conclusion has details that are stated in the stimulus.
If you are having difficulty with these questions, I recommend also taking your time!
Right now I am prioritizing getting it right over finishing in time.
That way I can focus on the concept and not be rushed.
I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THE ONLY IFS JYYYYY
26
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.
109 comments
REMEMBER: correct answer choice logical force should match with conclusion's logical force (TMD is not acceptable)
Do the contrapositive to better understand only if statements:
C: Use of a pesticide is acceptable only if it is used for its intended purpose and the pesticide has been shown not to harm any portion of the population.
Contra: if a pesticide is not used for its intended purpose or it has not been shown to be safe for the whole population, then its use is not acceptable. TMD hasn’t been shown to be safe for the whole population. So (C) supports the conclusion that TMD hasn’t been shown to be acceptable.
Can someone help me understand why E was too general? Seems like the correct application especially since per capita consumption would be higher for children.
What helped me choose C over B was that it sounded more like a rule
#help where did the stimulus say "TMD is a pesticide intended to be and actually used on peaches"?? it simply says "TMD is a pesticide used on peaches." we have no way of knowing what its intended use is -- it could have originally been INTENDED for apples when it was created but in practice USED on peaches. this doesn't make any sense to me.
Got 4 wrong in a row....
Why was ‘only if ok in this PSA ? Is it because it lend support to the rule that supported the argument presented? I went against C because of it smh #feedback
note to self, even if a word says "only if" don't immediately cross it off. Read that question and see if its applicable to the stimulus.
Crossed off C because where the hell did its "intended purpose" come from? The right answer can just add on another variable that hasn't been mentioned before?
I'm having a hard time figuring out this lawgic in my head fast enough when initially doing the problem😞😞😞😞
Okay, I did not chose C because in the previous lesson JY said 1) the correct AC must "end in the right place" (i.e., is the same conclusion/has the same meaning as the conclusion in the stimulus) and 2) that the conclusion must not be the sufficient condition. While this may (?) be true sometimes, I don't think it is reliable because the correct AC in this lesson broke both of these rules.
I think just knowing that the AC we're looking for will spit out the conclusion in the stimulus is the only way to go. Not much of a strategy because that's exactly what the question stem asks lolllll. Anyone else have another way of thinking about this question type?
GRRRRRRRR
i'm so frustrated with this lesson, I have been getting every question wrong. I literally want to cry.
The explanation for why C is right contradicts what he said in the last drill for why an answer is wrong.
I said E... I don't get why E is wrong and C is right! I'm working on my wrong answer journal rn and I can't put down an explanation for either #help
#feedback- why tell us to avoid "only if"/NCs in answers and then place this one right after? lol time to backtrack
I had it narrowed down to C,D,E. I could not decide which was the best until I made it into Lawgic format and it was obvious C was the correct answer. D and E did not even fall into the scope of my Lawgic.
The "used for its intended purpose" tripped me up because I didn't think it fit since it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the paragraph. :((((((
Part of the reason that I chose the right answer was for different reasons than what JY listed. The correct AC is less limiting bc we aren't only talking about small children, we are also talking about 'others' and that was one of the reasons I dismissed the special obligations answer choice because it did not fully apply to the group we are trying to keep from known harm that consumes these peaches in larger amounts
I'm still confused about why the answer is choice C. Didn't the stimulus mention that the TMD shows no effects on human health when ingested? Albeit, the per capita amount blah blah blah. Are we supposed to assume that there may be harmful effects by eating more TMD than the average? Otherwise, it doesn't explicitly state that anyone has been harmed by ingesting the peaches, including children, so I thought that fulfills choice C's second necessary condition—that a pesticide is acceptable if it's "been shown not to harm any portion of the population." With all conditions met, the pesticide would be acceptable, and that's counter to the consumer advocate's argument.
#help
What I'm learning with these 4-5 star Qs is that the right answer will be something I'm so unconfident about
Is anyone else just really struggling with sufficiency versus necessity in this context? I don't think I have missed so many practice questions consistently as I have in this lesson
These questions are taking me longer to answer but its because I double check every single answer to see if the conclusion has details that are stated in the stimulus.
If you are having difficulty with these questions, I recommend also taking your time!
Right now I am prioritizing getting it right over finishing in time.
That way I can focus on the concept and not be rushed.
I was going to pick C but then got scared of the "only if" because of the last lesson but I should've trusted that it made more sense.
I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THE ONLY IFS JYYYYY