If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay for the damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors conditional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm. Making the conclusion airtight.
i will say the readings before this comparing MBT to SA certainly made this confusing. I pegged A as being "correct" but not what the question was asking.
the prior lessons before this really tripped me up. I thought it was A but after reading through the SA lessons I doubted myself. I think the lessons could've been explained better
Isnt A just a restatement of the conclusion. Only reason wht I didnt pick it. The question asks what is to be inferred, so i assumed we are looking for something that the author assumes about Mr. Sandstrom
I have found many of these questions to be much easier when you don’t read some of these incredibly confusing explanations in the lessons prior to the question. The lessons truly just make you doubt yourself and make you over think many of the questions. Additionally, I only read the explanation as to which answer is correct and why it is correct so that way I only take away what I’m supposed to be looking for in each question. There is no reason a 14 minute video is necessary to explain why an answer is correct. Less is more
I immediately eliminated B when I saw only if. I was between A and C and the reason I went A is for the reasons explained by the tutor. For C, I abandoned it because it is talking about Sandstrom knowing about the consequences which is different from the premise. The premise is simply stating that she could have reasonably expected, which is essentially implying that she didn't "know". Therefore, if we were to go with that answer and do a negation, the argument would still work. She "didn't know". Doesn't matter, the argument isn't relying on her knowing or not, it is expecting her to have the capacity to know.
Here is what helped me eliminate D. Here's an analogous argument to D.
I know my car could breakdown and cause an accident that results in the damage to another individuals property.
Based on that statement is there any basis that I should reasonably expect my car is going to breakdown? Have I said I have a faulty motor? or am aware of engine trouble? No I have not. There is always a potential for just about anything to happen. I know that I could spontaneously combust but if I have no evidence as to how or why then I simply cannot reasonably expect that to happen.
Referencing my car example everyone knows their car could breakdown but that doesn't mean they are constantly reasonably expecting it to happen. The main consideration is acknowledging the spectrum upon which the possibility of an outcome occurs. Pretty much anything could happen. This is on the lenient side of the possibility spectrum, but as likelihood increases the reasonableness of the event occurring increases. In addition the more aware we are of the factors influencing the reasonableness of an event occurring the more reasonable it is for us to expect such an event to occur.
I made a different chain of conditionals but ultimately it led to if (Knew Damage could occur )--> Pay. (I kicked that the damage had happened to domain. Is there only 1 way to diagram things, or is a variance OK as long as it is solid.
basically im hoping I didn't get this question with blind luck
I had A but then switched to D in BR -- I am still a bit confused and unsure why exactly D is wrong. I understand why A is correct but I just do not get why D is wrong, any help please!!
So my question is how do you know you're looking for a full rule based on the QS and not a details. When we did PSA we had some questions that were about looking for 'rules' (which is a full argument that matches the shape of the current example, and we had 'application' which is when we look for a detail - usually part of the premise that would strengthen the application of the implicit rule and make it more likely that the conclusion would be true.
so how would I know what to look for here based on the QS?
In PSA we knew to hunt for a rule when it read:
Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument?
(Look for rule)
In PSA we knew to hunt for an application when it read:
The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
(Have rule, look for application. )
Im trying to abstract from PSA to SA -- is it when the question clearly states that there is a principal stated above that you go and look for a application but when its not mentioned, the assumption is that you should go and look for the rule or argument?
This is why I chose D. The stimulus says "if he could have reasonable expected... then he should pay for damage," but nowhere is said that he could have reasonable expected.... Thus, whithout that piece of information the argument has a gap, which D fulfills. A does nothing but restate what the stimulus already says.
so if the question stem says "properly" then the support must reach MUST (100%) and NOT strengthen?
0
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.
99 comments
those answer choices almost gave me an aneurysm omg
The author concludes
If Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm
The question is asking the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred IF which one of the following is assumed. So we want to find something in the answer choices that ensure this CONDITIONAL will follow that if someone expects something will cause damage that they should pay for the damage. AC A. does this by setting the conditional if one expects the actions would lead other ppl to cause damage --> one should pay for the damage. THIS ENSURES that the authors conditional conclusion follows because if this is true than it ensure if Sandstrom expected the column would lead to damage of the farm --> Sandstrom should pay for the damage of the farm. Making the conclusion airtight.
Anyone struggling like I did, hope this helps:
Compare how each following answer fits:
Notice how option D adds nothing new to the problem?
Once option D establishes that Sandstrom DID expect damage, there is no point in the conclusion asking IF she expected damage. It's redundant.
I knew A was right but i was confused because of the previous explanations so I literally did not choose it I literally crossed it out and chose D
i will say the readings before this comparing MBT to SA certainly made this confusing. I pegged A as being "correct" but not what the question was asking.
the prior lessons before this really tripped me up. I thought it was A but after reading through the SA lessons I doubted myself. I think the lessons could've been explained better
Isnt A just a restatement of the conclusion. Only reason wht I didnt pick it. The question asks what is to be inferred, so i assumed we are looking for something that the author assumes about Mr. Sandstrom
I was between A and B but eliminated B because of the "Only if" because then the only if would limit what is stated in the passage.
I was stuck between A and D... I chose D in the end
omg i got it wrong on actual and right on BR.. I'll take that bare minimum
I have found many of these questions to be much easier when you don’t read some of these incredibly confusing explanations in the lessons prior to the question. The lessons truly just make you doubt yourself and make you over think many of the questions. Additionally, I only read the explanation as to which answer is correct and why it is correct so that way I only take away what I’m supposed to be looking for in each question. There is no reason a 14 minute video is necessary to explain why an answer is correct. Less is more
I was confused because the correct answer is a principle, it does not pertain to any of the specifics of the stimulus.
Guess who fell for the oldest trick in the book?
(Me). 😭
I immediately eliminated B when I saw only if. I was between A and C and the reason I went A is for the reasons explained by the tutor. For C, I abandoned it because it is talking about Sandstrom knowing about the consequences which is different from the premise. The premise is simply stating that she could have reasonably expected, which is essentially implying that she didn't "know". Therefore, if we were to go with that answer and do a negation, the argument would still work. She "didn't know". Doesn't matter, the argument isn't relying on her knowing or not, it is expecting her to have the capacity to know.
Would it be correct/okay to kick the fact that damage was done into the domain?
This felt very similar to rule and stimulus application questions. am I wrong to make this connection?
Here is what helped me eliminate D. Here's an analogous argument to D.
I know my car could breakdown and cause an accident that results in the damage to another individuals property.
Based on that statement is there any basis that I should reasonably expect my car is going to breakdown? Have I said I have a faulty motor? or am aware of engine trouble? No I have not. There is always a potential for just about anything to happen. I know that I could spontaneously combust but if I have no evidence as to how or why then I simply cannot reasonably expect that to happen.
Referencing my car example everyone knows their car could breakdown but that doesn't mean they are constantly reasonably expecting it to happen. The main consideration is acknowledging the spectrum upon which the possibility of an outcome occurs. Pretty much anything could happen. This is on the lenient side of the possibility spectrum, but as likelihood increases the reasonableness of the event occurring increases. In addition the more aware we are of the factors influencing the reasonableness of an event occurring the more reasonable it is for us to expect such an event to occur.
I made a different chain of conditionals but ultimately it led to if (Knew Damage could occur )--> Pay. (I kicked that the damage had happened to domain. Is there only 1 way to diagram things, or is a variance OK as long as it is solid.
basically im hoping I didn't get this question with blind luck
I had A but then switched to D in BR -- I am still a bit confused and unsure why exactly D is wrong. I understand why A is correct but I just do not get why D is wrong, any help please!!
So my question is how do you know you're looking for a full rule based on the QS and not a details. When we did PSA we had some questions that were about looking for 'rules' (which is a full argument that matches the shape of the current example, and we had 'application' which is when we look for a detail - usually part of the premise that would strengthen the application of the implicit rule and make it more likely that the conclusion would be true.
so how would I know what to look for here based on the QS?
In PSA we knew to hunt for a rule when it read:
Which one of the following, if assumed, most helps to justify the reasoning in the archaeologist's argument?
(Look for rule)
In PSA we knew to hunt for an application when it read:
The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
(Have rule, look for application. )
Im trying to abstract from PSA to SA -- is it when the question clearly states that there is a principal stated above that you go and look for a application but when its not mentioned, the assumption is that you should go and look for the rule or argument?
how do we know it utilizes the rule-application reasoning?
was that a steamed hams reference
#help
I interpreted the stimulus in the following way:
R => P
? (R)
-----------
P
(R= "could have reasonably expected..."
P= "should pay for damage")
This is why I chose D. The stimulus says "if he could have reasonable expected... then he should pay for damage," but nowhere is said that he could have reasonable expected.... Thus, whithout that piece of information the argument has a gap, which D fulfills. A does nothing but restate what the stimulus already says.
#HELP #FEEDBACK
Does anyone know if the stimulus is written in conditional language than the correct answer must also be written conditionally (meaning if/then)?
#Help
so if the question stem says "properly" then the support must reach MUST (100%) and NOT strengthen?