I think for me it has been for helpful to think in terms of sufficiency/necessity than in terms of PSA. The idea is that sufficient assumptions absolutely guarantee the conclusion of the stimulus to follow in a valid way.
Try to ask yourself for each of the answer choices what answer, by itself, makes the argument absolutely airtight?.
It is similar to strengthening questions in a way (?). Try to strengthen the argument. But, even more. Try to make the argument completely valid.
The psychologist reasons that even though many employees who flatter their bosses are promoted, the flattery is so blatant that it is obvious. The argument fails to connect the obviousness of the flattery with the motivation for the promotions. In order to Justify the Conclusion, we will want to show that although the flattery is obvious, it does not actually impact the motivation behind the promotion of employees.
I personally prefer my Bob the Builder costume when I build a bridge. Most likely why I get half of these wrong... the bridges I build collapse like a house of cards as soon a breath of air touches it.
Organizing information in the stimulus is really important. If we know what is/are the sufficient conditons and what is/are the necessary conditions, then we know what to look for in ACs.
Is it wrong to rule out answers on SA questions that try to bring you an alternative explanation to the argument? I feel like B did that. Why is flattery generally ineffective? Because Merit is the guideline. We should only be focused on proving the argument the author made.
I believe it is wrong to select an answer which gives an alternative explanation. The stimulus isn't asking for a resolve, reconcile or explain, it is asking to properly infer the author's conclusion. In this way, B doesn't guarantee the author's conclusion as it doesn't connect the author's premise to their conclusion.
You need to guarantee the conclusion. Just pointing out the conclusion will most likely not be the correct answer. The premises will generally weakly support the conclusion. By selecting the answer that guarantees the conclusion FROM the premises, you are selecting the sufficient assumption.
agreed the simplest way I like to think about causal SA questions is that ur just like in PSA ur looking for a an additional fact to triger/validate the sufficient condition (premise) and by doing so u GUARANTEE the conclusion.
in causal SA in specific u have to assure that u are selecting the AC that reaffirms the cause of the argument that leads to the effect and not the other way around or not to chose a cause that was not stated in the argument.
correction obviously in PSA u are not GUARANTEEING THE conclusion for SA u are looking for the argument to become logically valid so the CONCLUSION IS 100%
Did this as a practice before watching the video and fell for A. I didn’t rule out E but I did downgrade it intuitively because I thought that the “almost never” wording was too absolute and there to trick us. However, I failed to keep close to the strict formal logic. I did easily rule out the other answer choices because of how much they strayed from the topic.
A’s chain comes out to: Obvious flattery —> boss expecting to be flattered —> no promotion
While E’s chain comes out to: obvious flattery —> supervisors not influenced by it —> no promotion
In my mind, A could still make sense, BUT, it would need an extra assumption that we simply don’t have. Why could it make sense? Because I thought that the boss expecting to be flattered nullified the effect of the flattery and so led to no promotion due to the flattery. HOWEVER, this only works if you assume the boss didn’t fall under the sway of the flattery. E doesn’t make this assumption, it just straight up gives it to us with “Supervisors are almost never influenced by flattery…” which creates much tighter and stronger formal logic in the chain. No need for an assumption because it’s given as fact in the same premise (E).
Moral of this for me was to not immediately blind myself to an answer choice because of its absolutist language (“almost never”) and to also stay cognizant of the assumptions needed to make an answer choice work.
For this exact problem, I could honestly see how A could be interpreted as correct but that is only by using logic outside of the question.
In real life, a boss expects to be flattered daily, and deals with brown nosers. It can be assumed he is a bit blinded from this common occurence to really have flattery effect his choice in promoting someone.
A still doesnt answer why this would make flattery fail, as im sure somewhere out there a boss expects flattery and it works. However, if E didn't exist I would probably pick A.
E just answers the question a bit better without needing to take large assumptions. Simple and quick answer choice without jumping through hoops.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I was the same way, but starting to put it together.
I also believe that these Questions are ones that involve practice and seeing multiple breakdown videos to the point where it is intuitive.
I believe he mentioned it earlier, in that, some questions don't strictly follow logically form and will require some smaller bridge builder in the connections between premises and other premises/conclusions.
Like the previous module using bi-conditionals or this one using less formal logic and more connecting the missing link.
I think 1)I'm too dumb to understand JY's "lanugauge" or 2) sometimes the explanation is not sufficient for me.
a-the use of "expect" is why it's wrong. they know flattery when they see one, but that doesn't mean they expect it.
b-"tend to focus" is not good enough to cause "subsequent" promotion of kiss-as/sers, which leaves room that the flattery might still have some room in affecting it.
c- tricks you into thinking that it's the contrapositive form, when its wrong.
Flattery noticed=>"almost never" effective.
Contrapositive should be:
flattery not noticed=>"almost always" effective? but the choice says its ineffective
No be the that annoying person there is a typo in answer choice A, I believe it is supposed to say flattered instead of fired
Answer Choice (A) says people in positions of responsibility expect to be flattered. The information here tells us that supervisors expect to be fired. But it still leaves unanswered the question of whether flattery is effective.
That's super helpful! Thank you for pointing this out. I corrected the typo. Please don't hesitate to let us know in the future if you spot more typos.
36 comments
It would be helpful if I could read what you guys are writing....
the fact that the stimulus is one sentence is crazy
Thought I was reading the Guiness world record for longest sentence, lsat writers are demons lmao
I am confused because I am not seeing a pattern in the way of solving this like how I have seen in other LR questions. Can anyone help me?
Same
I think for me it has been for helpful to think in terms of sufficiency/necessity than in terms of PSA. The idea is that sufficient assumptions absolutely guarantee the conclusion of the stimulus to follow in a valid way.
Try to ask yourself for each of the answer choices what answer, by itself, makes the argument absolutely airtight?.
It is similar to strengthening questions in a way (?). Try to strengthen the argument. But, even more. Try to make the argument completely valid.
I hope that is helpful!
would it be fair to assume that SA is is somewhat like find the rule but a lot tighter and more exact because it needs to be logically valid?
@CodyLevant Wondering this too. Great way of putting it!
The psychologist reasons that even though many employees who flatter their bosses are promoted, the flattery is so blatant that it is obvious. The argument fails to connect the obviousness of the flattery with the motivation for the promotions. In order to Justify the Conclusion, we will want to show that although the flattery is obvious, it does not actually impact the motivation behind the promotion of employees.
This question is a blob to me
I personally prefer my Bob the Builder costume when I build a bridge. Most likely why I get half of these wrong... the bridges I build collapse like a house of cards as soon a breath of air touches it.
Amazing explanation here. Thank you!
"Bob the bridge-builder, yes we can"....thx JY, that's going to be playing in my head while doing SA questions for sure
Organizing information in the stimulus is really important. If we know what is/are the sufficient conditons and what is/are the necessary conditions, then we know what to look for in ACs.
#feedback
Is it wrong to rule out answers on SA questions that try to bring you an alternative explanation to the argument? I feel like B did that. Why is flattery generally ineffective? Because Merit is the guideline. We should only be focused on proving the argument the author made.
I believe it is wrong to select an answer which gives an alternative explanation. The stimulus isn't asking for a resolve, reconcile or explain, it is asking to properly infer the author's conclusion. In this way, B doesn't guarantee the author's conclusion as it doesn't connect the author's premise to their conclusion.
Honestly, a lot of these come down to being the main conclusion. Am I wrong here?
You need to guarantee the conclusion. Just pointing out the conclusion will most likely not be the correct answer. The premises will generally weakly support the conclusion. By selecting the answer that guarantees the conclusion FROM the premises, you are selecting the sufficient assumption.
Not so fast! Rather, it comes down more so with the connection between the premises and conclusion
agreed the simplest way I like to think about causal SA questions is that ur just like in PSA ur looking for a an additional fact to triger/validate the sufficient condition (premise) and by doing so u GUARANTEE the conclusion.
in causal SA in specific u have to assure that u are selecting the AC that reaffirms the cause of the argument that leads to the effect and not the other way around or not to chose a cause that was not stated in the argument.
hope this helps!
correction obviously in PSA u are not GUARANTEEING THE conclusion for SA u are looking for the argument to become logically valid so the CONCLUSION IS 100%
I am flattered that this question was not too difficult. Just really long.
This lesson is missing the "show question" button
from the Premise --> Conclusion
GOT IT
is that sentence even grammatically correct, being that it's so long lol
yay i got it
I wish every SA question was like this
Did this as a practice before watching the video and fell for A. I didn’t rule out E but I did downgrade it intuitively because I thought that the “almost never” wording was too absolute and there to trick us. However, I failed to keep close to the strict formal logic. I did easily rule out the other answer choices because of how much they strayed from the topic.
A’s chain comes out to: Obvious flattery —> boss expecting to be flattered —> no promotion
While E’s chain comes out to: obvious flattery —> supervisors not influenced by it —> no promotion
In my mind, A could still make sense, BUT, it would need an extra assumption that we simply don’t have. Why could it make sense? Because I thought that the boss expecting to be flattered nullified the effect of the flattery and so led to no promotion due to the flattery. HOWEVER, this only works if you assume the boss didn’t fall under the sway of the flattery. E doesn’t make this assumption, it just straight up gives it to us with “Supervisors are almost never influenced by flattery…” which creates much tighter and stronger formal logic in the chain. No need for an assumption because it’s given as fact in the same premise (E).
Moral of this for me was to not immediately blind myself to an answer choice because of its absolutist language (“almost never”) and to also stay cognizant of the assumptions needed to make an answer choice work.
For this exact problem, I could honestly see how A could be interpreted as correct but that is only by using logic outside of the question.
In real life, a boss expects to be flattered daily, and deals with brown nosers. It can be assumed he is a bit blinded from this common occurence to really have flattery effect his choice in promoting someone.
A still doesnt answer why this would make flattery fail, as im sure somewhere out there a boss expects flattery and it works. However, if E didn't exist I would probably pick A.
E just answers the question a bit better without needing to take large assumptions. Simple and quick answer choice without jumping through hoops.
I was thrown off because E comes off as simply a restatement of the conclusion-I should have read more carefully.
Cant get any of these right in this module.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory I was the same way, but starting to put it together.
I also believe that these Questions are ones that involve practice and seeing multiple breakdown videos to the point where it is intuitive.
I believe he mentioned it earlier, in that, some questions don't strictly follow logically form and will require some smaller bridge builder in the connections between premises and other premises/conclusions.
Like the previous module using bi-conditionals or this one using less formal logic and more connecting the missing link.
Just my opinion based on experience.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory same
I think 1)I'm too dumb to understand JY's "lanugauge" or 2) sometimes the explanation is not sufficient for me.
a-the use of "expect" is why it's wrong. they know flattery when they see one, but that doesn't mean they expect it.
b-"tend to focus" is not good enough to cause "subsequent" promotion of kiss-as/sers, which leaves room that the flattery might still have some room in affecting it.
c- tricks you into thinking that it's the contrapositive form, when its wrong.
Flattery noticed=>"almost never" effective.
Contrapositive should be:
flattery not noticed=>"almost always" effective? but the choice says its ineffective
d-is just too stupid of an answer
No be the that annoying person there is a typo in answer choice A, I believe it is supposed to say flattered instead of fired
Answer Choice (A) says people in positions of responsibility expect to be flattered. The information here tells us that supervisors expect to be fired. But it still leaves unanswered the question of whether flattery is effective.
#feedback
That's super helpful! Thank you for pointing this out. I corrected the typo. Please don't hesitate to let us know in the future if you spot more typos.