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!
@ariarmstrong03 YES! This is exactly what I've been doing since the beginning, and it has done nothing but help me. Then, afterwards, you just have to remember that if you want A --> B, you don't want B --> A.
Love this section. I'm just asking myself, "Okay what is NEEDED to be true if that's the conclusion..." and usually it's just linking the existing premise to the conclusion. What's the assumption here that bridges the gap? That's your answer.
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?
Okay, doing this for my own understanding (I took a few days off of the LSAT entirely. Not sure if that helped me here, but this is my third stab at this section. I did really well on the PSA section first like a lot of others, but who knows the second time around...). I hated this section, but I think it's starting to now click after doing a few NA; so if anyone is stuck, try those first.
Here's my understanding as to why B is the right answer now doing this the third time. I originally picked E. Hopefully this helps others.
SA questions ask us what needs to be properly drawn to be assumed for the argument to make sense. That does not mean that the assumption is necessary; we just have to know what is missing for us to understand how the premise does support the conclusion.
The conclusion is that photographs are interpretations of reality, and the support for that is because photographers express their own worldviews through their photographs (I moved the middle phrase "by deciding which subjects to depict and how to depict them" to the end of the sentence to make it easier to understand).
So, obviously, this is not strong support. Just because they express their own worldviews through photographs doesn't mean that they are interpretations of reality; but we don't care about that right now. We are assuming that the conclusion and support are correct. So, what's missing?
B. B is missing; because it says that expressing a worldview is to interpret reality. The premise says that photographers express their own worldviews in their photographs, and thus photographs are interpretations of reality. With B, the argument makes sense. If one was to express a worldview and that interprets reality, then photographers fall within that "rule."
Does this mean B is necessary for the argument to make sense? No, because it's too broad of a rule to be necessary. Necessary rules are specific to the argument, and nothing else.
A is incorrect because it's kind of switching what is sufficient and what is necessary. We also don't care about the "representing a subject realistically" part - we care about the worldview part.
C is incorrect because it's just too broad. It talks about "all visual art" - we don't care about that. We only care about photographs. That should be an immediate cross-out.
D is incorrect because it switches sufficient and necessary. Just because something expressing a worldview is an interpretation of reality doesn't mean that all interpretations of reality got there because of the expression of a worldview. Getting to something through one path does not mean it's the only path you can take.
E is incorrect because we do not care about what is realistic or unrealistic for photographs. It's trying to distract us; the conclusion only talks about photographs as a whole. Immediate cross-out.
Hopefully this helps! If you're discouraged, don't worry. I cried after the first time I did this section, but I think I'm starting to get it. Let me know if any of this was confusing!
ok i dont see how any other answer could work but i just dont think that B is a good answer to the question in any way, and I might be alone in thinking this. To me, a worldview is BY DEFINITION an interpretation of reality.... like thats literally what it means. so i dont understand why it takes an "assumption" to bridge the gap... i dont think there is a gap.
So when you say "Just because they express their own worldviews through photographs doesn’t mean that they are interpretations of reality;" .... i disagree. like that is literally what that means....
You're not alone, some days will be better, and some will be annoyingly frustrating. I recently went through a weeklong slump where I was getting so many questions wrong, and I felt like I was regressing. This week has been a lot better already and my confidence is back up. Keep going
It’s definitely week by week, question by question.
but if it helps the conclusion needs to be expressed as the necessary condition in the answer choice. So when you find the conclusion go to the answer choices and make sure the conclusion is the second idea expressed in the answers.
@JZ123 what has been helping me is identifying the premise and conclusion and then imagining that there is a blank in between the two. the answer that you pick should fill in the blank and make the conclusion stronger. idk if that helps
@JZ123 Its starting to click for me "Find the Missing Bridge".
P: Photographers express their worldview.
C: Photographs are interpretations
Missing bridge must be something like "Express Worldview == Interpret"
I just start ignoring everything that is not the things being linked. What is the author trying to link? And what is the gap in that link?
I start with the conclusion. Photographs are interpretations. Ok... where do we talk about interpretations? We don't. We do talk about expressing worldviews with photographs.. Ok the author is trying to convince us that expressing a worldview and interpreting are the same thing.
Start with what is in the conclusion, try to find the evidence of the conclusion, and identify the missing link that would make the evidence actually prove the conclusion.
91 comments
this section is really kicking my ass wow
@ariannazuwa798 same 😭
Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption are definitely my worst subjects
"Find the missing link". starting to get it, bitchez.
Build that mf bridge
Finally didn't make the backwards bridge mistake 🥲 i feel like a logic adolescent instead of a logic baby now 😎
I am doing so poorly on this section and did great on the last section.
Same tbh
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!
@ariarmstrong03 YES! This is exactly what I've been doing since the beginning, and it has done nothing but help me. Then, afterwards, you just have to remember that if you want A --> B, you don't want B --> A.
although I got this right, I have a blindspot for backwards bridges.. I am becoming more aware of this though
Same! At first (specifically with PSA) I was having a hard time with spotting backwards bridges, but I'm getting better at it in this section!
Love this section. I'm just asking myself, "Okay what is NEEDED to be true if that's the conclusion..." and usually it's just linking the existing premise to the conclusion. What's the assumption here that bridges the gap? That's your answer.
@SimonArmendariz Same!!
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?
@sjbutton so the powerscore bibles say this and its been helpful with these questions:
any new element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer.
elements that are common to the conclusion and at least one or two premises normally do not appear in the correct answer.
elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion usually appear in the correct answer.
I think im getting it!
slay.
UNREAL
Lmao I read D and said "ha ha you wont get me this time"
@ManjotSingh I know right?
I actually laughed when I saw it beecause I was like, oldest trick in the book? We're better than this.
Feels so good to get these correct lol. Glimmer of hope
Okay, doing this for my own understanding (I took a few days off of the LSAT entirely. Not sure if that helped me here, but this is my third stab at this section. I did really well on the PSA section first like a lot of others, but who knows the second time around...). I hated this section, but I think it's starting to now click after doing a few NA; so if anyone is stuck, try those first.
Here's my understanding as to why B is the right answer now doing this the third time. I originally picked E. Hopefully this helps others.
SA questions ask us what needs to be properly drawn to be assumed for the argument to make sense. That does not mean that the assumption is necessary; we just have to know what is missing for us to understand how the premise does support the conclusion.
The conclusion is that photographs are interpretations of reality, and the support for that is because photographers express their own worldviews through their photographs (I moved the middle phrase "by deciding which subjects to depict and how to depict them" to the end of the sentence to make it easier to understand).
So, obviously, this is not strong support. Just because they express their own worldviews through photographs doesn't mean that they are interpretations of reality; but we don't care about that right now. We are assuming that the conclusion and support are correct. So, what's missing?
B. B is missing; because it says that expressing a worldview is to interpret reality. The premise says that photographers express their own worldviews in their photographs, and thus photographs are interpretations of reality. With B, the argument makes sense. If one was to express a worldview and that interprets reality, then photographers fall within that "rule."
Does this mean B is necessary for the argument to make sense? No, because it's too broad of a rule to be necessary. Necessary rules are specific to the argument, and nothing else.
A is incorrect because it's kind of switching what is sufficient and what is necessary. We also don't care about the "representing a subject realistically" part - we care about the worldview part.
C is incorrect because it's just too broad. It talks about "all visual art" - we don't care about that. We only care about photographs. That should be an immediate cross-out.
D is incorrect because it switches sufficient and necessary. Just because something expressing a worldview is an interpretation of reality doesn't mean that all interpretations of reality got there because of the expression of a worldview. Getting to something through one path does not mean it's the only path you can take.
E is incorrect because we do not care about what is realistic or unrealistic for photographs. It's trying to distract us; the conclusion only talks about photographs as a whole. Immediate cross-out.
Hopefully this helps! If you're discouraged, don't worry. I cried after the first time I did this section, but I think I'm starting to get it. Let me know if any of this was confusing!
ok i dont see how any other answer could work but i just dont think that B is a good answer to the question in any way, and I might be alone in thinking this. To me, a worldview is BY DEFINITION an interpretation of reality.... like thats literally what it means. so i dont understand why it takes an "assumption" to bridge the gap... i dont think there is a gap.
So when you say "Just because they express their own worldviews through photographs doesn’t mean that they are interpretations of reality;" .... i disagree. like that is literally what that means....
i am god
amen
I understand it now.
The subconscious assumption you have ( the connection between the conclusion and premise) is the answer
For these I noticed it is important to go with your first answer choice
I'm gaining too much confidence in these You Try exercises just to bomb the drill I know it lol.
i think i might be goated....
For the first time I didn't confuse sufficiency for necessity!!
its finally clicking for me!!
Same here!
I feel stuck, im continuously getting every question wrong over and over
You're not alone, some days will be better, and some will be annoyingly frustrating. I recently went through a weeklong slump where I was getting so many questions wrong, and I felt like I was regressing. This week has been a lot better already and my confidence is back up. Keep going
It’s definitely week by week, question by question.
but if it helps the conclusion needs to be expressed as the necessary condition in the answer choice. So when you find the conclusion go to the answer choices and make sure the conclusion is the second idea expressed in the answers.
P→C
very helpful thank you
I have yet to get a SA question right on the first try. Any suggestions/tips?
@JZ123 what has been helping me is identifying the premise and conclusion and then imagining that there is a blank in between the two. the answer that you pick should fill in the blank and make the conclusion stronger. idk if that helps
@alexandragarcia I got 4/5 on the drill. There is hope!
@JZ123 Its starting to click for me "Find the Missing Bridge".
P: Photographers express their worldview.
C: Photographs are interpretations
Missing bridge must be something like "Express Worldview == Interpret"
I just start ignoring everything that is not the things being linked. What is the author trying to link? And what is the gap in that link?
I start with the conclusion. Photographs are interpretations. Ok... where do we talk about interpretations? We don't. We do talk about expressing worldviews with photographs.. Ok the author is trying to convince us that expressing a worldview and interpreting are the same thing.
Start with what is in the conclusion, try to find the evidence of the conclusion, and identify the missing link that would make the evidence actually prove the conclusion.
feel like i'm reading confucius