Crossed out B but not for the reason stated in this video. Didnt even see that reason. I crossed it out for lacking specificity.
Heres the thing B is a perfect example of why we need some english comp sections. As JY has said alot of the test is about english comprehension we need lessons on that using things like B as an example.
I gotta sharpen those english skills!!! I didnt even think that "of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue" meant some work for Arvue and some dont.
I diagrammed as fully qualified working for arvu -->/hire most productive and the contrapositive being: hire most productive --> /fully qualified working for arvue.
Therefore if Delacruz should be hired, then there are no fully qualified candidates working for arvue and by implication, he must be the most productve. Does this make sense? I still got the right answer
How did you know that none of the candidates currently work for Arvue? That wasn't stated or implied - it just says "WHEN none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for that company..." But how do we know we're meeting that condition?? If we're looking at the APPLICATION to the Principle, when should/shouldn't we assume that we're falling under the conditions of that principle?
I've started to think of these as if someone was arguing a point to me and I had the stick of truth and all I have to do is repeat their logic to them and it becomes true.
#feedback The whole thing about the argument superlatively implying that we should not hire the other candidates is confusing to me. I guess I intuitively made that connection, if they are arguing for not hiring one of the candidates because of the attributes of another, I assumed that logically, they are arguing for hiring such candidate, if not then why would the principle even apply? Feel free to let it be clear if I should not just make such assumptions, or if it can be dangerous to do so for future questions of this kind.
I see a gap in this question. There is nothing in the stimulus that actually says that a fully qualified candidate who does not already work for arvue ALSO needs to be the most productive. That is an assumption.
"Most productive" is a descriptor that the stimulus does not apply to the "fully qualified" and in fact does not apply it until the given situation where none of arvue's current employees are FQ for the role. Furthermore, in the given situation, the stimulus also does not specify that the company should even hire a qualified candidate. Maybe the candidate is qualified or is not. Either way, as long as they are the most productive we're good. According to the rule given in the stimulus.
Therefore, I was looking for an answer choice to confirm that Delazcruz did not already work for Arvue. But since Delacruz-- given in the stimulus-- IS fully qualified, the fact that she is also the most productive candidate is actually /becomes completely irrelevant.
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.
122 comments
9 mins im so cooked :(
im either loosing steam or im getting lost in the stimulus n need to review foundations
im cooked
6 minutes but a win is a win :/
Damn, didn't read B carefully enough. They got me
i cry
Crossed out B but not for the reason stated in this video. Didnt even see that reason. I crossed it out for lacking specificity.
Heres the thing B is a perfect example of why we need some english comp sections. As JY has said alot of the test is about english comprehension we need lessons on that using things like B as an example.
I gotta sharpen those english skills!!! I didnt even think that "of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue" meant some work for Arvue and some dont.
I've gotten the first 3 questions incorrect for this chapter. I'm going crazy
I diagrammed as fully qualified working for arvu -->/hire most productive and the contrapositive being: hire most productive --> /fully qualified working for arvue.
Therefore if Delacruz should be hired, then there are no fully qualified candidates working for arvue and by implication, he must be the most productve. Does this make sense? I still got the right answer
this question lowkey sucks
Why do i feel like I’m reading a foreign language
why did this take me 10 years to solve
why is this not a level 5 question 💀 easiest the worst ive seen and ive read some diabolical level 5 NA Qs
How did you know that none of the candidates currently work for Arvue? That wasn't stated or implied - it just says "WHEN none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for that company..." But how do we know we're meeting that condition?? If we're looking at the APPLICATION to the Principle, when should/shouldn't we assume that we're falling under the conditions of that principle?
Scared that I’m being delulu cuz I’ve gotten the last few SA questions right
what the hell was this
nearly had a brain aneurysm trying to read this
I've started to think of these as if someone was arguing a point to me and I had the stick of truth and all I have to do is repeat their logic to them and it becomes true.
Supplicant: This is a mammal if it is a cow
Me from my Throne of Truth: All Cows are Mammals
LSAT Writer: Yay, you did it
Where's the lie?
literally actually why
#feedback The whole thing about the argument superlatively implying that we should not hire the other candidates is confusing to me. I guess I intuitively made that connection, if they are arguing for not hiring one of the candidates because of the attributes of another, I assumed that logically, they are arguing for hiring such candidate, if not then why would the principle even apply? Feel free to let it be clear if I should not just make such assumptions, or if it can be dangerous to do so for future questions of this kind.
I see a gap in this question. There is nothing in the stimulus that actually says that a fully qualified candidate who does not already work for arvue ALSO needs to be the most productive. That is an assumption.
"Most productive" is a descriptor that the stimulus does not apply to the "fully qualified" and in fact does not apply it until the given situation where none of arvue's current employees are FQ for the role. Furthermore, in the given situation, the stimulus also does not specify that the company should even hire a qualified candidate. Maybe the candidate is qualified or is not. Either way, as long as they are the most productive we're good. According to the rule given in the stimulus.
Therefore, I was looking for an answer choice to confirm that Delazcruz did not already work for Arvue. But since Delacruz-- given in the stimulus-- IS fully qualified, the fact that she is also the most productive candidate is actually /becomes completely irrelevant.
bruh i just brain farted
F this.
Dopamine-draining.
im not getting this