how does E not work? the stim says that children for example eat more than average and expected, making them more susceptible to the poison of the pesticide.
It doesn't say that kids eating more children causes Harm, its more so like a warning. I t could therefore its an unacceptable practice (the pesticides)
I have a question for anyone reading this: do you solidify the premise to conclusion link before you look at the answer choices? For me, I've mostly read the stim and completed the question just fine. But can you complete the question faster by being more explicit with the argument?
I do that after the fact. I do the same of reading the stim then reading through the answers. Afterwards I say why the other ones are wrong more fleshed out. Through the answering process I say like one word or pick out a word to why I think it's wrong
What has helped me the most is try to think about finding an answer that connects the premise to the conclusion. Look for an answer that states a rule that connects the premises and facts in the stimulus to the conclusion. The correct "rule" will state the facts given in the stimulus that need to be triggered in order for the conclusion to happen or be true.
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
130 comments
Six Seconds Under?! Level 4 got it RIGHT???!!!!
how does E not work? the stim says that children for example eat more than average and expected, making them more susceptible to the poison of the pesticide.
@GDatria715
It doesn't say that kids eating more children causes Harm, its more so like a warning. I t could therefore its an unacceptable practice (the pesticides)
I have a question for anyone reading this: do you solidify the premise to conclusion link before you look at the answer choices? For me, I've mostly read the stim and completed the question just fine. But can you complete the question faster by being more explicit with the argument?
@NixonAnderson
I do that after the fact. I do the same of reading the stim then reading through the answers. Afterwards I say why the other ones are wrong more fleshed out. Through the answering process I say like one word or pick out a word to why I think it's wrong
What has helped me the most is try to think about finding an answer that connects the premise to the conclusion. Look for an answer that states a rule that connects the premises and facts in the stimulus to the conclusion. The correct "rule" will state the facts given in the stimulus that need to be triggered in order for the conclusion to happen or be true.
I NEED TO READ MORE CAREFULLY
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
@SeanWolfe right omg
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