I also liked E because a pesticide is a measure to protect the population from harm and TMD is a pesticide. So, the rule as it applies to the argument is that some segments of the population who unknowingly consume dangerous amounts of it are caused harm and therefore TMD use 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.
@Dbarsemian Hey, so I believe it is general in the sense that we don't know what the harm is and if children are actually being harmed. All we know is that children consume more. That doesn't mean that they are being more harmed. They might be, but that's an assumption.
Also, what are the measures taken? Is using TMD a new measure the government implemented because a previous measure caused harm? We don't know. I think it's easier to see how E is wrong based on how it is really hard to trigger this sufficient condition because of the lack of information in the stimulus and how the conclusion in the end doesn't get us closer to knowing that the practice is unacceptable. The generalization is just a part of that bigger picture.
@Dbarsemian I think E is wrong because banning the use of TMD isn’t really about “protecting the population from harm.” In fact, the author said that TMD is not harmful to human health when ingested in the current amount. TMD was banned for the only reason that it posed harm to certain segments of the population (children), but nobody else.
#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.
I think the intended use of TMD is irrelevant to C being correct. He says that TMD is being used for its intended purpose, and I think it's fine to assume it is, but C would still be correct even if it weren't being used for its intended purpose. When you take the contrapositive of C, you only need to have one of the two sufficient conditions to trigger the conclusion that the use of TMD is unacceptable.
original: acceptable → intended purpose AND /possibility of harm
contrapositive: /intended purpose OR possibility of harm → /acceptable
The use of TMD is unacceptable if it's not being used for its intended purpose, OR hasn't been shown not to harm any portion of the population (or both).
The stimulus shows us that 20% of the population consumes a disproportionately large amount of these peaches with TMD. It is unclear from the study whether these people could be harmed by the amount of TMD they are consuming. This fulfills the second sufficient condition (in the contraposed version) and leads us to the conclusion we want, that TMD is unacceptable.
So to put it briefly, the stimulus doesn't explicitly say the intended use of TMD, but it doesn't matter. There is really concrete evidence given for the second condition (possibility of harm), which triggers the desired result (/acceptable). The conclusion that the use of TMD is unacceptable still follows from C.
I hope this makes sense; the grammar is pretty complicated, which is probably why he didn't bother to go through the entire contrapositive.
@emilydermo393 Glad to know I wasnt the only one, especially after getting 4 in a row correct before this one. I missed all the others after this but the last one.
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?
As long as no part of the answer contradicts any part of the stim AND is the best or contains the best answer then it can be a right answer for a strengthen question.
I will admit it was a red flag an made me spend way more time looking for another answer that didn't add an irrelevant variable to the mix.
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 used the same reasoning as you to eliminate C! However, what JY said (1 and 2) are both always true in PSAr questions and they are true in this situation too.
C. is tricky because it APPEARS to put the conclusion in the sufficient condition but it actually does not; it actually puts the OPPOSITE of the conclusion in the sufficient condition, meaning when you contrapose you correctly get the actual conclusion in the necessary condition.
You can translate C to: acceptable --> intended purpose and shown not to harm
The contrapositive is: /intended purpose or /shown not to harm --> /acceptable
When you take the contrapositive, it is clear that this answer choice starts in the right place, i.e. the premises trigger the sufficient condition because TMD is NOT shown not to harm. It is also clear that it ends in the right place, i.e. the rule delivers the result we want, which is NOT acceptable.
Yes, I got the wrong answer with the same logic with littlepumpkinpie and figured out with the same logic with mh212529. I actually got the wrong answer at PT133S1Q22, where the chosen wrong answer was (A) An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.
PT133S1Q22 lawgic: wrong → only if understand r/w
PT132S2Q23 lawgic: acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm
The only difference between these two questions in stimulus from my view is that the conclusion of the former is 'wrong', while that of the latter is 'not acceptable'.
Since the latter one's NC (2) is failed, so SC, acceptable is failed, which aligns with the reasoning of the stimulus. If (C) is shown like /acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm, it would be totally wrong.
My conclusion here is the modified version of littlepumpkinpie's insight.
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)
2) that the exact +- sign(or form) of conclusion must not be the sufficient condition.
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.
121 comments
this section has been beating my ass constantly i feel like a dead horse
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez seriously
I really wish I understood the WSE questions as much as I understand PSA questions
using necessary condition indicators for sufficient assumption.
Beginning to think I'm not going to be able to get the score I need to get on the LSAT.
level 4s and 5s are my besties. the lower levels, on the other hand.... they're praying on my downfall.
im getting more of these wrong. I don't understand - i am looking for something to strengthen the argument ?
ahhhh this one was tricky! I chose E :/
Missed C because it had a statement not entirely relevant. Will be on the look out for this from now on
I also liked E because a pesticide is a measure to protect the population from harm and TMD is a pesticide. So, the rule as it applies to the argument is that some segments of the population who unknowingly consume dangerous amounts of it are caused harm and therefore TMD use is not acceptable.
I got so turned off by C because it included that irrelevant part about pesticides intended purpose...
Misread the conclusion... Missed the word "not"
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.
@Dbarsemian i think the use of "sometimes" does not make it a rule to justify the consumer advocate's population
@Dbarsemian Hey, so I believe it is general in the sense that we don't know what the harm is and if children are actually being harmed. All we know is that children consume more. That doesn't mean that they are being more harmed. They might be, but that's an assumption.
Also, what are the measures taken? Is using TMD a new measure the government implemented because a previous measure caused harm? We don't know. I think it's easier to see how E is wrong based on how it is really hard to trigger this sufficient condition because of the lack of information in the stimulus and how the conclusion in the end doesn't get us closer to knowing that the practice is unacceptable. The generalization is just a part of that bigger picture.
@Dbarsemian I think E is wrong because banning the use of TMD isn’t really about “protecting the population from harm.” In fact, the author said that TMD is not harmful to human health when ingested in the current amount. TMD was banned for the only reason that it posed harm to certain segments of the population (children), but nobody else.
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.
I think the intended use of TMD is irrelevant to C being correct. He says that TMD is being used for its intended purpose, and I think it's fine to assume it is, but C would still be correct even if it weren't being used for its intended purpose. When you take the contrapositive of C, you only need to have one of the two sufficient conditions to trigger the conclusion that the use of TMD is unacceptable.
original: acceptable → intended purpose AND /possibility of harm
contrapositive: /intended purpose OR possibility of harm → /acceptable
The use of TMD is unacceptable if it's not being used for its intended purpose, OR hasn't been shown not to harm any portion of the population (or both).
The stimulus shows us that 20% of the population consumes a disproportionately large amount of these peaches with TMD. It is unclear from the study whether these people could be harmed by the amount of TMD they are consuming. This fulfills the second sufficient condition (in the contraposed version) and leads us to the conclusion we want, that TMD is unacceptable.
So to put it briefly, the stimulus doesn't explicitly say the intended use of TMD, but it doesn't matter. There is really concrete evidence given for the second condition (possibility of harm), which triggers the desired result (/acceptable). The conclusion that the use of TMD is unacceptable still follows from C.
I hope this makes sense; the grammar is pretty complicated, which is probably why he didn't bother to go through the entire contrapositive.
Got 4 wrong in a row....
Stay strong
@emilydermo393 Glad to know I wasnt the only one, especially after getting 4 in a row correct before this one. I missed all the others after this but the last one.
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
The last sentence in the stim shows a conditional statement where it says
risk→not acceptable and the answer choice is showing the contrapositive of it
acceptable → not risk
I did the same thing!
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.
real
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?
As long as no part of the answer contradicts any part of the stim AND is the best or contains the best answer then it can be a right answer for a strengthen question.
I will admit it was a red flag an made me spend way more time looking for another answer that didn't add an irrelevant variable to the mix.
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?
I used the same reasoning as you to eliminate C! However, what JY said (1 and 2) are both always true in PSAr questions and they are true in this situation too.
C. is tricky because it APPEARS to put the conclusion in the sufficient condition but it actually does not; it actually puts the OPPOSITE of the conclusion in the sufficient condition, meaning when you contrapose you correctly get the actual conclusion in the necessary condition.
You can translate C to: acceptable --> intended purpose and shown not to harm
The contrapositive is: /intended purpose or /shown not to harm --> /acceptable
When you take the contrapositive, it is clear that this answer choice starts in the right place, i.e. the premises trigger the sufficient condition because TMD is NOT shown not to harm. It is also clear that it ends in the right place, i.e. the rule delivers the result we want, which is NOT acceptable.
Yes, I got the wrong answer with the same logic with littlepumpkinpie and figured out with the same logic with mh212529. I actually got the wrong answer at PT133S1Q22, where the chosen wrong answer was (A) An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.
PT133S1Q22 lawgic: wrong → only if understand r/w
PT132S2Q23 lawgic: acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm
The only difference between these two questions in stimulus from my view is that the conclusion of the former is 'wrong', while that of the latter is 'not acceptable'.
Since the latter one's NC (2) is failed, so SC, acceptable is failed, which aligns with the reasoning of the stimulus. If (C) is shown like /acceptable → only if (1) purpose and (2) shown not harm, it would be totally wrong.
My conclusion here is the modified version of littlepumpkinpie's insight.
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)
2) that the exact +- sign(or form) of conclusion must not be the sufficient condition.
GRRRRRRRR
i'm so frustrated with this lesson, I have been getting every question wrong. I literally want to cry.
same.
I relate so0 much I literally wanna throw up 🥲. I hope it got better for you
same! I feel like I'm mapping out the stimulus correctly and understanding what I'm reading but then continue choosing the wrong answer.
The explanation for why C is right contradicts what he said in the last drill for why an answer is wrong.
I skipped C when I saw "only" because of what he said last time...
Same! I originally had C and then changed my answer when I saw the words "only if"...
Same!
same! I am so confused and I am still not understanding #help