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.
I can see that some people, including myself, are struggling to understand why D is wrong. In my view, I think it's because if we assumed D to be true, we are left with two disjointed facts: 1) trespassers caused damage and 2) Sandstrom knew this could happen. How are we supposed to logically infer that these two facts add up to "she should pay for damages"?
ACs like A and B that are strikingly similar except for a couple words are my biggest weakness. In practice I can tell the difference between them because I have the time, but under time conditions I always fumble these. If anyone has any advice on getting better between identifying the dissimilarities, please let me know! Even reviewing the lawgic terms alone hasn't helped with actual questions.
I determined D was wrong because the logic of the argument makes trespassing the condition for damage. Regardless of the distinctions between know and reasonably expect, I threw out the answer because the second premise stated that the individual had to reasonably expect damage, not trespassing that would be sufficient for people causing damage. While it could be assumed that she could have expected/known that damage could occur (as a result of expecting trespassing and thus knowing damage results from trespassing), I felt a lot more comfortable with A, given the direct relationship between the expectations and damage. Is this a correct way of discerning this answer?
Am I right in the belief that only A and B are the only reasonable answers because they are more broad and generalized? Thats what worked for me in the lessons before and it worked here as well.
I had such a hard time figuring out the difference between A and B, I need up choosing A but I wasn’t confident about it at all.
4
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.
86 comments
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?
I can see that some people, including myself, are struggling to understand why D is wrong. In my view, I think it's because if we assumed D to be true, we are left with two disjointed facts: 1) trespassers caused damage and 2) Sandstrom knew this could happen. How are we supposed to logically infer that these two facts add up to "she should pay for damages"?
Going back through this question type because I really struggled the first time. Wish me luck
this lesson left me with a craving for mouth watering hamburgers
ACs like A and B that are strikingly similar except for a couple words are my biggest weakness. In practice I can tell the difference between them because I have the time, but under time conditions I always fumble these. If anyone has any advice on getting better between identifying the dissimilarities, please let me know! Even reviewing the lawgic terms alone hasn't helped with actual questions.
Darude Sandstorm
I determined D was wrong because the logic of the argument makes trespassing the condition for damage. Regardless of the distinctions between know and reasonably expect, I threw out the answer because the second premise stated that the individual had to reasonably expect damage, not trespassing that would be sufficient for people causing damage. While it could be assumed that she could have expected/known that damage could occur (as a result of expecting trespassing and thus knowing damage results from trespassing), I felt a lot more comfortable with A, given the direct relationship between the expectations and damage. Is this a correct way of discerning this answer?
Am I right in the belief that only A and B are the only reasonable answers because they are more broad and generalized? Thats what worked for me in the lessons before and it worked here as well.
I had such a hard time figuring out the difference between A and B, I need up choosing A but I wasn’t confident about it at all.