This was an interesting one because, despite being a Sufficient Assumption question, it is an example of where you need to make a “reasonable” additional assumption in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn. The question is which assumption LSAT writers think is small enough to be an entailment. I picked the correct answer here, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as this explanation suggests. I'd note Ping's explanation suggests the text is referring to your journals from high school. That isn't textually supported. It's subject's recollections. "SUBJECTS REPORTS ABOUT THEIR PAST" is different from "SUBJECTS PAST (CONTEMPORANEOUS) REPORTS OF THEIR PAST." Memories are inherently unreliable. That is a plain fact about the world. The answer choice suggests that is not a leap we can make without being spelled out in an answer choice. Now, to the leap we are required to make... all measurements contain error, and once you get enough error, that limits conclusions. The point where the error is big enough to prevent conclusions about causality can vary dramatically depending on the details. Here, we’re told self report is highly susceptible to error. Is highly susceptible about the frequency of the error? Or about the magnitude? We don’t know. If it said "highly susceptible to really large errors" that might help, but it doesn't say that. We certainly don’t know the relative magnitude of the error compared to the causal relationship we’re examining. LSAT writers here expect you to assume that "highly susceptible to inaccuracy" entails "inaccurate enough that it can't reliably determine causality". This is an assumption many people make, but it is not accurate, and certainly not entailed. It’s an example of confusing relative for absolute. LSAT writers here are assuming that error is binary. Something is either accurate or inaccurate, and therefore being highly susceptible to inaccuracy is sufficient to make it meaningless. But error is NOT absolute, it is very specifically something that is always present, quantifiable, and relative. Error prevents conclusions precisely when it is large enough relative to the size of the effect we are trying to identify. We don’t know that is the case here. Now, I expect LSAT writers to be a few decades behind the domain experts on this sort of thing, so I would expect them to conclude that self report prevents causal inference (rather than self report complicates causal inference), but I was honestly surprised that it was in a “sufficient assumption” question. The question survives by process of elimination, but the correct answer choice does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.
I eliminated C because I thought "just because something is susceptable to inacuracy, does not gurentee we can't determine present characteristics." That's why I was looking for a "If, then" rule that gurenteed the conclusion about present characteristics
I eliminated (C) during the actual take and BR because I thought "highly susceptible to inaccuracy" didn't meet the burden of proof needed to 100% justify the conclusion. Now that I'm taking a third look at all the choices w/o timed pressure, I can see how this is obviously the right choice.
I'm fighting the urge to debate the logical validity of [highly susceptible to inaccuracy] = [100% inaccurate]. Instead, I'll just chalk it up to LSAT writers being tricky, and that (C) is absolutely right in relation to the other answer choices.
I was stuck between C and D, I thought D could have proven the conclusion as it stating the opposite of what the Premises are saying. So therefore it would prove, I don’t know that was my thought process.
For those that chose AC (A), keep in mind that with SA questions, we are trying to make the conclusion logically valid. In order to do so, we will more than likely choose the AC that uses the strongest language because it will do the best job at proving the conclusion to be 100% true. "may" is too weak of a claim, and won't help bridge that gap to the conclusion with 100% certainty. With sufficient assumptions we need 100% certainty that the conclusion will be true. Weak ACs (probably, could, may, not necessarily) are almost always wrong because they don't guarantee the conclusion.
This has helped me consistently chose the correct answer so far!
This class of questions is so frustrating for me. I feel like with each question type I have been able to eventually understand the ask and apply it but not here. I understand the ask but for some reason I just can never pick the right answer.
ive been consistently getting these right but only with mapping out the question after a really long time. Every question ive done on this module has been a minute or 2 over the target when it does not feel like I could have understood it faster.
At the same time on PT's its like sufficient assumption questions are frequently ones that I have trouble with even without this framework, so it just feels like this kind of question in general is harder than the rest. I pretty much always end up going over time because of them.
I had C, then changed to D. I felt that the wording on D matched a little bit better since it used "reliably," but didn't account for the "can reliably," where the stimulus was talking about "CANNOT reliably predict."
Drew the assumption in my head that "the reports of their past are "unreliable" (from background knowledge about self reporting) and if the past is unreliable which would be the cause then of course you cannot determine the present the outcome. Then quickly eliminated C because I thought well that is just a restating of what was already said even though they didn't already say it it was on the assumption that I drew.
I finally got one right in this section! Had to slow it down, and read it multiple times to ensure that I understood which answer would be the bridge between the premise and conclusion.
I was stuck between A and C. I chose A over C because I think the assumption that self reporting can be inaccurate is more reasonable than the assumption that researchers need accurate self-reports to be effective. For example, perhaps they can conduct rigorous psychological work on a self-report that is inaccurate and identify patterns of fabrications and learn about the subject from them. I'm not saying this is the case, but it was a possibility that popped into my mind and I thought A bridged the gap created by that possibility, which seems to be less reasonably inferred away and more disruptive to the argument than the gap filled by C.
1:39... Anyone else taking almost double the time on these? SA is not fun.
12
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!
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.
78 comments
This was an interesting one because, despite being a Sufficient Assumption question, it is an example of where you need to make a “reasonable” additional assumption in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn. The question is which assumption LSAT writers think is small enough to be an entailment. I picked the correct answer here, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as this explanation suggests. I'd note Ping's explanation suggests the text is referring to your journals from high school. That isn't textually supported. It's subject's recollections. "SUBJECTS REPORTS ABOUT THEIR PAST" is different from "SUBJECTS PAST (CONTEMPORANEOUS) REPORTS OF THEIR PAST." Memories are inherently unreliable. That is a plain fact about the world. The answer choice suggests that is not a leap we can make without being spelled out in an answer choice. Now, to the leap we are required to make... all measurements contain error, and once you get enough error, that limits conclusions. The point where the error is big enough to prevent conclusions about causality can vary dramatically depending on the details. Here, we’re told self report is highly susceptible to error. Is highly susceptible about the frequency of the error? Or about the magnitude? We don’t know. If it said "highly susceptible to really large errors" that might help, but it doesn't say that. We certainly don’t know the relative magnitude of the error compared to the causal relationship we’re examining. LSAT writers here expect you to assume that "highly susceptible to inaccuracy" entails "inaccurate enough that it can't reliably determine causality". This is an assumption many people make, but it is not accurate, and certainly not entailed. It’s an example of confusing relative for absolute. LSAT writers here are assuming that error is binary. Something is either accurate or inaccurate, and therefore being highly susceptible to inaccuracy is sufficient to make it meaningless. But error is NOT absolute, it is very specifically something that is always present, quantifiable, and relative. Error prevents conclusions precisely when it is large enough relative to the size of the effect we are trying to identify. We don’t know that is the case here. Now, I expect LSAT writers to be a few decades behind the domain experts on this sort of thing, so I would expect them to conclude that self report prevents causal inference (rather than self report complicates causal inference), but I was honestly surprised that it was in a “sufficient assumption” question. The question survives by process of elimination, but the correct answer choice does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.
I eliminated C at first and got confused with B. Then I chose C in BR :')
I eliminated C because I thought "just because something is susceptable to inacuracy, does not gurentee we can't determine present characteristics." That's why I was looking for a "If, then" rule that gurenteed the conclusion about present characteristics
Goddamn
I eliminated (C) during the actual take and BR because I thought "highly susceptible to inaccuracy" didn't meet the burden of proof needed to 100% justify the conclusion. Now that I'm taking a third look at all the choices w/o timed pressure, I can see how this is obviously the right choice.
I'm fighting the urge to debate the logical validity of [highly susceptible to inaccuracy] = [100% inaccurate]. Instead, I'll just chalk it up to LSAT writers being tricky, and that (C) is absolutely right in relation to the other answer choices.
Was doing so well in this section but this question completely threw me off :(
So if an answer choice simply repeats a premise, it's automatically incorrect because it's not affecting the argument at all, right?
I was stuck between C and D, I thought D could have proven the conclusion as it stating the opposite of what the Premises are saying. So therefore it would prove, I don’t know that was my thought process.
Finally, my first time getting the correct answer on SA mm
My 2 cents literally nobody asked for:
For those that chose AC (A), keep in mind that with SA questions, we are trying to make the conclusion logically valid. In order to do so, we will more than likely choose the AC that uses the strongest language because it will do the best job at proving the conclusion to be 100% true. "may" is too weak of a claim, and won't help bridge that gap to the conclusion with 100% certainty. With sufficient assumptions we need 100% certainty that the conclusion will be true. Weak ACs (probably, could, may, not necessarily) are almost always wrong because they don't guarantee the conclusion.
This has helped me consistently chose the correct answer so far!
ugh, finally got one right - I hate these!!
Wordy ahh question
idk why I don't just
read the answers before I answer
im losing my mind
This class of questions is so frustrating for me. I feel like with each question type I have been able to eventually understand the ask and apply it but not here. I understand the ask but for some reason I just can never pick the right answer.
ive been consistently getting these right but only with mapping out the question after a really long time. Every question ive done on this module has been a minute or 2 over the target when it does not feel like I could have understood it faster.
At the same time on PT's its like sufficient assumption questions are frequently ones that I have trouble with even without this framework, so it just feels like this kind of question in general is harder than the rest. I pretty much always end up going over time because of them.
I had C, then changed to D. I felt that the wording on D matched a little bit better since it used "reliably," but didn't account for the "can reliably," where the stimulus was talking about "CANNOT reliably predict."
Only 3 stars.........This one was a tough one to understand.
Drew the assumption in my head that "the reports of their past are "unreliable" (from background knowledge about self reporting) and if the past is unreliable which would be the cause then of course you cannot determine the present the outcome. Then quickly eliminated C because I thought well that is just a restating of what was already said even though they didn't already say it it was on the assumption that I drew.
I finally got one right in this section! Had to slow it down, and read it multiple times to ensure that I understood which answer would be the bridge between the premise and conclusion.
Mmmm, word salad question.
I was stuck between A and C. I chose A over C because I think the assumption that self reporting can be inaccurate is more reasonable than the assumption that researchers need accurate self-reports to be effective. For example, perhaps they can conduct rigorous psychological work on a self-report that is inaccurate and identify patterns of fabrications and learn about the subject from them. I'm not saying this is the case, but it was a possibility that popped into my mind and I thought A bridged the gap created by that possibility, which seems to be less reasonably inferred away and more disruptive to the argument than the gap filled by C.
My blind review is always so much better. Being timed really stresses me out.
FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT HUHUHU - I'm crying
1:39... Anyone else taking almost double the time on these? SA is not fun.