So E is wrong because the conclusion asserts that NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH on the basis that people may find "acceptance" by those who have the same personal beliefs. Answer choice E asserts that IF DOING SO COULD MAKE IT EASIER TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE LIFE ONE MAY CHOSE FOR ONESELF THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCAITE. This is wrong because this is creating a set that only those with whom we now it would make it easier to live an enjoyable life should be able to chose for one self the people with whom they will associate. BUT THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT NO ONEEEEE should be denied the freedom to choose this accounts even for those that potentially may not make it easier for them to live an enjoyable life.
given how insanely granular you have to go to differentiate C, D, and E, I'm not sure how else you could expect this question to get the last difficulty star. This was max difficulty for sure
Seems like adverbs often kill an answer choice. "Deliberately" (in answer choice D) narrows the applicability of the rule and opens up other possibilities that were unaddressed in the stimulus. Once we start specifying HOW something is done, it seems like we often introduce restrictions that the stimulus doesn't contemplate. Just something I've noticed....
I can't stand the philosophical questions. i can get them right and not even fully understand why because tit always feels like the statement just circles in on itself.
Is it valid that I took out option E simply because I didn't like that it was giving me oppositeto what the question stem said? (eg. you should be allowed to choose vs. no one should be denied from choosing).
I had the hardest time choosing between C and E, and honestly the explanation given doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think way I ruled out E, was because E seemed a lot less definitive in its rule -- Like yes, you can choose the people you want to associate with if doing so let's you live a more enjoyable life.
Versus, the wording in the stimulus and the correct answer C was a lot stronger-- you should NOT be denied that freedom to do so.
That was how I reasoned it in my head.
Side note, the way the incorrect answers are explained with the teacher say "Um... ooookay..." And then the explanation for why it's wrong still doesn't make sense to me makes me feel dumb every time LOL.
This question was one of the harder ones for me in this section. So, I thought I would share how I spotted the correct answer for anyone who might've come to the right answer the same way. I will be breaking down my (possibly convoluted) thought process in hopes that it helps at least one person lol.
While I immediately liked answer choice C) as soon as I saw it (more intuitively, it seemed to fill a missing part in the argument), I was still hesitant and stuck between D) and E) because I was not sure what missing part of the argument it seemed to fill.
However, the part of the missing argument that I felt C) touched on, that neither D) nor E) did, was the mention of the "given freedom" that shouldn't be denied in the stimulus. The stimulus uses the EXAMPLE of how one uses the POSSIBLE "given freedom" of choosing one's friends to allow for a less difficult means to live an enjoyable life. It doesn't stipulate that that is the ONLY freedom by which one can get to that enjoyable life.
The part that makes distinguishing that harder is that the stimulus continues using that specific example of the "possible freedom" (the freedom of choosing friends) throughout the argument and the conclusion. This makes one think that it is THAT specific freedom (i.e., freedom of choosing friends) that necessitates the means to an enjoyable life. However, staying true to the underlying understanding that the "thing" doing the work in the argument is the fact that it is a "GIVEN freedom" that HAS that ability (of allowing one to get to an enjoyable life), which should not be denied, is what makes answer choice C) the correct answer -- not so much that it is that specific freedom of choosing friends that is what supports the argument.
I don't know if this will make the most sense to everyone else, but I thought it couldn't hurt to share how I was able to spot the correct answer here :)
There are two aspects of having an "enjoyable life." D is wrong because it only covers one aspect of an enjoyable life - friends/ associates who share the same beliefs. C is correct because it speaks to an enjoyable life more generally, thereby covering friends/ associates who share the same beliefs and lifestyle choices that align with personal beliefs.
got it right again. sorry guys i think im the goat
6
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!
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!
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.
113 comments
So E is wrong because the conclusion asserts that NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH on the basis that people may find "acceptance" by those who have the same personal beliefs. Answer choice E asserts that IF DOING SO COULD MAKE IT EASIER TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE LIFE ONE MAY CHOSE FOR ONESELF THE PPL WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCAITE. This is wrong because this is creating a set that only those with whom we now it would make it easier to live an enjoyable life should be able to chose for one self the people with whom they will associate. BUT THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT NO ONEEEEE should be denied the freedom to choose this accounts even for those that potentially may not make it easier for them to live an enjoyable life.
wow I got this right in 4 mins! I am so slay !
No clue how i got this right. i spent 6 minutes trying to convince myself my answer is wrong.
given how insanely granular you have to go to differentiate C, D, and E, I'm not sure how else you could expect this question to get the last difficulty star. This was max difficulty for sure
sat here for 11 minutes just lawgic -ing my way through this one, it is a bit of a beast.
Aww man! I was on a role. I got cocky about getting the last question right! I guess this is karma.
this had me doubting myself for 8 mins
language out here like we in the shakespear days
So in this particular case, looking for a broader answer choice and tying it back to the conclusion (freedom) helps us find the answer.
Seems like adverbs often kill an answer choice. "Deliberately" (in answer choice D) narrows the applicability of the rule and opens up other possibilities that were unaddressed in the stimulus. Once we start specifying HOW something is done, it seems like we often introduce restrictions that the stimulus doesn't contemplate. Just something I've noticed....
these 4 level questions in PSA are no joke
I can't stand the philosophical questions. i can get them right and not even fully understand why because tit always feels like the statement just circles in on itself.
i get these questions right but i dont understand why
Need to remember to think about WHO has membership
I mapped this out as a conditional
choices made in line with beliefs & choices accepted by others --> easier life
i can see how he made it into a casual chain but did anyone else do this ...
Is it valid that I took out option E simply because I didn't like that it was giving me oppositeto what the question stem said? (eg. you should be allowed to choose vs. no one should be denied from choosing).
I am so frustrated.. I've gotten so many in a row wrong. Why am I not learning from my mistakes!!!
Doesn't E get sufficiency/necessity confused?
IF choosing for oneself the ppl you hangout with makes life ENJOYABLE --> then you may choose who you are free to hangout with.
Doesn't our chain say IF free to choose -->enjoy? I eliminated E this way.
if only the whole test was this question type only
I had the hardest time choosing between C and E, and honestly the explanation given doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think way I ruled out E, was because E seemed a lot less definitive in its rule -- Like yes, you can choose the people you want to associate with if doing so let's you live a more enjoyable life.
Versus, the wording in the stimulus and the correct answer C was a lot stronger-- you should NOT be denied that freedom to do so.
That was how I reasoned it in my head.
Side note, the way the incorrect answers are explained with the teacher say "Um... ooookay..." And then the explanation for why it's wrong still doesn't make sense to me makes me feel dumb every time LOL.
I've been getting these questions right, but the time it's taking me to answer them is skyrocketing.
This question was one of the harder ones for me in this section. So, I thought I would share how I spotted the correct answer for anyone who might've come to the right answer the same way. I will be breaking down my (possibly convoluted) thought process in hopes that it helps at least one person lol.
While I immediately liked answer choice C) as soon as I saw it (more intuitively, it seemed to fill a missing part in the argument), I was still hesitant and stuck between D) and E) because I was not sure what missing part of the argument it seemed to fill.
However, the part of the missing argument that I felt C) touched on, that neither D) nor E) did, was the mention of the "given freedom" that shouldn't be denied in the stimulus. The stimulus uses the EXAMPLE of how one uses the POSSIBLE "given freedom" of choosing one's friends to allow for a less difficult means to live an enjoyable life. It doesn't stipulate that that is the ONLY freedom by which one can get to that enjoyable life.
The part that makes distinguishing that harder is that the stimulus continues using that specific example of the "possible freedom" (the freedom of choosing friends) throughout the argument and the conclusion. This makes one think that it is THAT specific freedom (i.e., freedom of choosing friends) that necessitates the means to an enjoyable life. However, staying true to the underlying understanding that the "thing" doing the work in the argument is the fact that it is a "GIVEN freedom" that HAS that ability (of allowing one to get to an enjoyable life), which should not be denied, is what makes answer choice C) the correct answer -- not so much that it is that specific freedom of choosing friends that is what supports the argument.
I don't know if this will make the most sense to everyone else, but I thought it couldn't hurt to share how I was able to spot the correct answer here :)
this took me six minutes :']
There are two aspects of having an "enjoyable life." D is wrong because it only covers one aspect of an enjoyable life - friends/ associates who share the same beliefs. C is correct because it speaks to an enjoyable life more generally, thereby covering friends/ associates who share the same beliefs and lifestyle choices that align with personal beliefs.
got it right again. sorry guys i think im the goat