I'm noticing a common thread in these: the conclusion tends to introduce a factor that the premises don't mention, so the answer typically connects this new factor with one from the premises.
Is that something we can rely on, or is it possible for all answers in a question to address them both?
Up until this point I keep switching premise and conclusion in my answer picking and IDK what switched, but I'm finally understanding that even if it feels right if the conclusion is first followed by the premise, then that answer is wrong (obviously taking into account reversed or reframed causation)
I think im FINALLY starting to get these. get the premise. then conclusion then find the answer that finds the commonality between them is what's working for me. I wasn't doing the lawgic before because I didn't think I would be able to identify them right and risk getting the wrong answer but as long as you have the conclusion right thats half the battle and a good start!
My strategy here (which could be wrong) is that I look for what piece of information sticks out the most. Like a sentence that mentions a new phrase or piece of information, and I think to myself, "what in the stimulus reinforces this idea?" In this case, it was the "interpretations" (which of course happens to be part of the conclusion). As soon as I saw that, I knew that my answer would require me to constitute what exactly interpretations of reality are.
This could be dumb luck, but SA/NA questions are my worst, so I hope I'm starting to improve.
You are saying that anything that is an interpretation of reality is ultimately a worldview. So, even if you are presenting unbiased data with no argument, that is a worldview. That would make absolutely no sense.
Im still confused about the necessary-sufficient issue here. I am consistently getting it mixed up. Can anyone help? Is there a lesson I should refer to? #help
Oof. I read this as three sentences, with the "however" portion being its own sentence stating that photographs MAY represent reality, so I picked D. It makes so much more sense when you read it correctly.
even if the bridge was built in the correct direction for D, wouldn't the language still be insufficient? If the answer changed the order, it would still only allow you to conclude that any world view INVOLVES interpretation of reality, rather than IS an interpretation of reality
I got the correct answer in blind review AC a tripped me up but I ruled it out on the basis of the word "CAN" because we are seeking to make the argument logically valid making the conclusion 100% true and "CAN" is not strong enough its weaker it leaves room for the possibility for something else.
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!
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.
62 comments
I'm noticing a common thread in these: the conclusion tends to introduce a factor that the premises don't mention, so the answer typically connects this new factor with one from the premises.
Is that something we can rely on, or is it possible for all answers in a question to address them both?
Up until this point I keep switching premise and conclusion in my answer picking and IDK what switched, but I'm finally understanding that even if it feels right if the conclusion is first followed by the premise, then that answer is wrong (obviously taking into account reversed or reframed causation)
this section is really kicking my ass wow
I think im FINALLY starting to get these. get the premise. then conclusion then find the answer that finds the commonality between them is what's working for me. I wasn't doing the lawgic before because I didn't think I would be able to identify them right and risk getting the wrong answer but as long as you have the conclusion right thats half the battle and a good start!
both xAI and ChatGPT agree that the answer should be A, not B. I'm just getting trolled at this point
Finally didn't make the backwards bridge mistake 🥲 i feel like a logic adolescent instead of a logic baby now 😎
My strategy here (which could be wrong) is that I look for what piece of information sticks out the most. Like a sentence that mentions a new phrase or piece of information, and I think to myself, "what in the stimulus reinforces this idea?" In this case, it was the "interpretations" (which of course happens to be part of the conclusion). As soon as I saw that, I knew that my answer would require me to constitute what exactly interpretations of reality are.
This could be dumb luck, but SA/NA questions are my worst, so I hope I'm starting to improve.
its finally clicking for me!!
My explanation of why D is wrong.
You are saying that anything that is an interpretation of reality is ultimately a worldview. So, even if you are presenting unbiased data with no argument, that is a worldview. That would make absolutely no sense.
For the first time I didn't confuse sufficiency for necessity!!
was not confident in my first choice which was B, I chose D twice out of sheer annoyance
For these I noticed it is important to go with your first answer choice
B seemed too straightforward I picked D... hopefully that will be a learning lesson for me!
I feel stuck, im continuously getting every question wrong over and over
Im still confused about the necessary-sufficient issue here. I am consistently getting it mixed up. Can anyone help? Is there a lesson I should refer to? #help
Oof. I read this as three sentences, with the "however" portion being its own sentence stating that photographs MAY represent reality, so I picked D. It makes so much more sense when you read it correctly.
even if the bridge was built in the correct direction for D, wouldn't the language still be insufficient? If the answer changed the order, it would still only allow you to conclude that any world view INVOLVES interpretation of reality, rather than IS an interpretation of reality
the premise-conclusion bridge analogy is finally helping, had to let it marinate overnight
i got this wrong because i read this as "however, realistically, those photographs..." and not "however realistically those photographs..."
"Find the missing link". starting to get it, bitchez.
if (answer) then (conclusion)
Feels so good to get these correct lol. Glimmer of hope
This one is a weird one.
although I got this right, I have a blindspot for backwards bridges.. I am becoming more aware of this though
I got the correct answer in blind review AC a tripped me up but I ruled it out on the basis of the word "CAN" because we are seeking to make the argument logically valid making the conclusion 100% true and "CAN" is not strong enough its weaker it leaves room for the possibility for something else.