"Solely" really screwed me up. In retrospect though, the solely is really needed for this to be a proper SA question. Since the rule ensures that the stimulus must end up being true, the solely needs to be there so that the stimulus can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Checkers was trying to hurt Marty's.
I got it right in blind review. I think I realized that B was jumping the gun and saying immediately that they wished to hurt the company. But it did not list the facts first to prove that, A did that. So, B was not the best bridge to connect to the conclusion. And D is just an alternative hypothesis so that modifier should have been the signal to throw it out. Tough question.
I got this wrong because I thought the right answer would address all the conditional elements in the stimulus. I'm also struggling to determine when to use Lawgic vs trying to solve the problem by reading the passage and picking the one that makes the most sense.
Hi Everyone!!. Really think I am starting to get these sufficient assumption questions and thought I would share my thought process for others!!.
Okay here is my thought process " I first start off by reading the question stem. I know that this is a sufficient assumption question so there is going to a gap in the reasoning. I then read the stimulus and find the conclusion and find the evidence for this conclusion. The author is going to come up with a conclusion that is not 100% supported by the facts. I will give the practical example here. Conclusion "This shows that Checkers's motive in refusing to accept the coupons was simply to hurt Marty's Pizza." Now what is the evidence for this
1. Accepting them would have cost Checkers nothing,
2. and would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books.
Now when I read this I can immidediatly spot the gap and the gap is with the statement in the conclusion "This shows that checkers motive in refusing was simply to hurt Martys pizza"' Now what I said was that does not show that his motive was to simply hurt Martys there could have been so many other reasons why checkers did not want to accept it maybe he didn't have the staff to make the pizza or something like that. With that in mind I now prephrase.
Prephrase: What helped me was when someone said "the test writers really don't have much room with the answer choice. When I say that they don't have much room I mean that they have to 100% prove the conclusion with the correct answer choice the argument now because 100% logically valid and leaves no wiggle room. so prephrasing becomes easy. So in my prephrase I take the position of Martys Pizza's attorney. Now I have to convince you based solely on the facts given that checkers did this solely to hurt Martys pizza. My rephrase looked like this "any company that can accept a coupon that would not have cost them anything and that would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books does so for the sole purpose to hurt that other company"
Then I go looking for the answer and answer "A" "Any company that refuses to accept coupons issued by a competitor when doing so would satisfy some of the company's potential customers is motivated solely by the desire to hurt that competitor." The key words here are Any which means that checkers would fall into that category. The other key word here is Soley which means that there is no other option possible besides just trying to hurt the competitor.
With all that being said B was so tempting "Any company that wishes to hurt a competitor by refusing to accept coupons issued by that competitor will refuse to accept them even when accepting them would cost nothing and would satisfy its potential customers." but after looking at it I was able to see that the relationship was backwards and was the oldest mistake in the book confusing sufficient for necessary.
Final thing that helped me was zooming out to a Birds Eye view and not immideiatly trying to diagram etc. just understand what the conclusion says and what are the facts. and what they want me to do with the question stem.
I don't know if that makes sense you all but it definitely helped me !!! Anyone feel free to correct me or ask for clarification!!
I got the answer correct; however, I was stuck between letter choices A and C. I went through the explanation, and what I gathered is that the answer choice doesn’t specify what kind of company it’s referring to because it states “at least one company.” But isn’t “any company” also not specifying which kind of company we are referring to? Furthermore, in my opinion, neither option clarifies what kind of company (shoe, grocery, etc.) is being discussed. However, both go on to explain that whatever company they are referring to refuses to accept coupons issued by major local competitors. Doesn’t that, in a way, define what kind of company is being referenced?
I am not very comfortable on the reasoning why C is wrong. Because it says company and not pizza parlor? Even the right answer says company. Would love some more guidance, thanks. #feedback
Since when are we questioning the truth of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus? Since the beginning we were always told to take the stimulus as true, but now the reason B is wrong is that we aren't believing the conclusion drawn in the stimulus?? #feedback
#Help A vs. B - can someone please help me understand why B is wrong and A is right? Im getting thrown off by "is motivated solely by" vs "that wishes to". I don't understand what makes these statements different
Answer choice C also makes a sufficient and necessary mix up because, "in order to hurt that competitor" - "in order to" introduces the sufficient condition. However, in our premise to conclusion bridge the motive to hurt Marty's pizza is the conclusion (a.k.a. the necessary condition). ~
Posting to share my small win.. 4 months ago I got this wrong. Chose E, I do not even know why. 3 months ago I got it wrong and chose B. Today after going through 60% of the curriculum I knew immediately answer A was the correct answer. It is actually the perfect answer.
I can feel my brain starting to understand these I might just start crying
21
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!
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.
115 comments
"Solely" really screwed me up. In retrospect though, the solely is really needed for this to be a proper SA question. Since the rule ensures that the stimulus must end up being true, the solely needs to be there so that the stimulus can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Checkers was trying to hurt Marty's.
I got it right in blind review. I think I realized that B was jumping the gun and saying immediately that they wished to hurt the company. But it did not list the facts first to prove that, A did that. So, B was not the best bridge to connect to the conclusion. And D is just an alternative hypothesis so that modifier should have been the signal to throw it out. Tough question.
I got really tripped up by the word "solely" in answer A
M coupon book. -> All pizza accept
C refused M coupon -> motive hurt M
Must be: M coupon -> C refuses/hurts M
A) “Any” — they are major competitors (clearly setting example for others)
Specifically if we need to connect A -> C we should try to target the first section of prem and the ending goal — this case motive— was to hurt M
Hope that helps
These are the curve breakers folks lol
Yo J.Y. this SA conundrum is wack YO!
I got this wrong because I thought the right answer would address all the conditional elements in the stimulus. I'm also struggling to determine when to use Lawgic vs trying to solve the problem by reading the passage and picking the one that makes the most sense.
what's been helping me with these questions and thinkiing about each sentence very separately and premises are named
The word "solely" threw me off from choosing A and I chose D instead 😩
Hi Everyone!!. Really think I am starting to get these sufficient assumption questions and thought I would share my thought process for others!!.
Okay here is my thought process " I first start off by reading the question stem. I know that this is a sufficient assumption question so there is going to a gap in the reasoning. I then read the stimulus and find the conclusion and find the evidence for this conclusion. The author is going to come up with a conclusion that is not 100% supported by the facts. I will give the practical example here. Conclusion "This shows that Checkers's motive in refusing to accept the coupons was simply to hurt Marty's Pizza." Now what is the evidence for this
1. Accepting them would have cost Checkers nothing,
2. and would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books.
Now when I read this I can immidediatly spot the gap and the gap is with the statement in the conclusion "This shows that checkers motive in refusing was simply to hurt Martys pizza"' Now what I said was that does not show that his motive was to simply hurt Martys there could have been so many other reasons why checkers did not want to accept it maybe he didn't have the staff to make the pizza or something like that. With that in mind I now prephrase.
Prephrase: What helped me was when someone said "the test writers really don't have much room with the answer choice. When I say that they don't have much room I mean that they have to 100% prove the conclusion with the correct answer choice the argument now because 100% logically valid and leaves no wiggle room. so prephrasing becomes easy. So in my prephrase I take the position of Martys Pizza's attorney. Now I have to convince you based solely on the facts given that checkers did this solely to hurt Martys pizza. My rephrase looked like this "any company that can accept a coupon that would not have cost them anything and that would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books does so for the sole purpose to hurt that other company"
Then I go looking for the answer and answer "A" "Any company that refuses to accept coupons issued by a competitor when doing so would satisfy some of the company's potential customers is motivated solely by the desire to hurt that competitor." The key words here are Any which means that checkers would fall into that category. The other key word here is Soley which means that there is no other option possible besides just trying to hurt the competitor.
With all that being said B was so tempting "Any company that wishes to hurt a competitor by refusing to accept coupons issued by that competitor will refuse to accept them even when accepting them would cost nothing and would satisfy its potential customers." but after looking at it I was able to see that the relationship was backwards and was the oldest mistake in the book confusing sufficient for necessary.
Final thing that helped me was zooming out to a Birds Eye view and not immideiatly trying to diagram etc. just understand what the conclusion says and what are the facts. and what they want me to do with the question stem.
I don't know if that makes sense you all but it definitely helped me !!! Anyone feel free to correct me or ask for clarification!!
#help Why wouldn't this be considered rule-application since our task is to find a rule that works?
I got the answer correct; however, I was stuck between letter choices A and C. I went through the explanation, and what I gathered is that the answer choice doesn’t specify what kind of company it’s referring to because it states “at least one company.” But isn’t “any company” also not specifying which kind of company we are referring to? Furthermore, in my opinion, neither option clarifies what kind of company (shoe, grocery, etc.) is being discussed. However, both go on to explain that whatever company they are referring to refuses to accept coupons issued by major local competitors. Doesn’t that, in a way, define what kind of company is being referenced?
I just noticed the background noise option... it gave me alittle laugh.
Had A and then changed it to B I was confused on how the order of the sentence affected the suff/necessity relationship
Answer choice A scared me with the word choice "solely"
is it safe to assume that the reason why B is wrong is because of a mistaken reversal? Like, instead of A-> B, it says B-> A?
I am not very comfortable on the reasoning why C is wrong. Because it says company and not pizza parlor? Even the right answer says company. Would love some more guidance, thanks. #feedback
Since when are we questioning the truth of the premises and conclusion in the stimulus? Since the beginning we were always told to take the stimulus as true, but now the reason B is wrong is that we aren't believing the conclusion drawn in the stimulus?? #feedback
#Help A vs. B - can someone please help me understand why B is wrong and A is right? Im getting thrown off by "is motivated solely by" vs "that wishes to". I don't understand what makes these statements different
I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND! I'M SO HAPPY!!
Answer choice C also makes a sufficient and necessary mix up because, "in order to hurt that competitor" - "in order to" introduces the sufficient condition. However, in our premise to conclusion bridge the motive to hurt Marty's pizza is the conclusion (a.k.a. the necessary condition). ~
So, the correct answer will not start with the conclusion?
Posting to share my small win.. 4 months ago I got this wrong. Chose E, I do not even know why. 3 months ago I got it wrong and chose B. Today after going through 60% of the curriculum I knew immediately answer A was the correct answer. It is actually the perfect answer.
Can anyone explain why B is incorrect? I do not understand why.
I can feel my brain starting to understand these I might just start crying