My brain is getting better at recognizing that when they keep reusing very specific phrases they are cluing you in that you are supposed to use that as one of the terms to connect to the conclusion. "makes sense" appeared way too many times for it to be unimportant
Not sure why these "harder difficulty" ones are much easier for me than the easy ones...
i was stuck on D for so long and then I went with C, I'm mad.
I think I'm realizing that my problem is correctly identifying where the gap is. When I identify it correctly, I generally get them right, but when I don't I'm way off.
The only reason I got this question right was because I wrote out the premises' conditionals and the conclusion's conditional like you taught us. Doing that made me notice the giant hole in the major premise's support for the conclusion. It would've never clicked for me otherwise.
Major Premise: Love-Feeling -> /PromiseSense
Conclusion: /Love-Feeling
Only way to get to conclusion (i.e., which sufficient condition leads to this conclusion)? Contrapositive of Major Premise: PromiseSense -> /Love-Feeling
Been reviewing this question a couple different times now and still struggle to understand how D fills the gap between the major premise and conclusion. Anyone able to break it down in an easier way?? :///
can someone clarify what he means by "prescriptive" conclusion? I keep hearing that phrase, and I don't think I fully understand what it means. Does he mean that we need to translate the premises into a "should do xyz" statement?
kinda confused: it seems like the teachers prephrased anwer doesnt map on to the missing assumpion.
He says: If taking love to refer to feelings renders the marital vow nonsensical, then one should not take love in the context of a marital vow to refer to feelings.
But this still leaves open the possibility that marital vows could be nonsensical, and thus love in this context could refer to feelings.
This gap is fixed by D, which basically says that promises must make sense, which guarantees the conclusion.
I got this right first try but took about 4 minutes. Here's my tip with these questions make sure you find the gap in the stimulus. There will always be a gap where something doesn't fully click. In this questions it was between "promises making no sense if out of one's control" and "no one should take love to be referring to a feeling."
How do these two really relate to each other? In the stimulus they do not. They feel like two independent claims because no one is saying that a promise cannot simply make no sense and still be made. For the authors conclusion to be true we have to prove that a non sensical promise cannot possibly be exist, because otherwise individuals would be able to take love to refer to a feeling they just would do so on a promise they know cannot be upheld and makes no sense.
In other words what D is actually saying is that if a promise is interpreted in a way that makes no sense it is not actually a promise at all. Thus for a marital vows to be a promise they by D's definition must make sense and in order to make sense they cannot be referring to love as a feeling as feelings our out of ones control.
The reason why B is incorrect is that is still allows for a promise to be a promise even if it makes no sense and is out of one's control. Thus one can promise another to "love them until death" fully knowing the promise makes no sense and refer to love as a feeling still. All B says is that one should not make the promises, but it fails to establish that one quite literally cannot make the promise.
Can somebody show the lawgic they wrote down for this one? I tried it 5 times and couldn't get it. I feel like the explanation didn't show the actual lawgic. Im frustrated bc the video doesn't use the method we were supposed to use. #feedback
I think by "this is a really tough question" you meant impossible. Just when I though I was starting to understand SA questions, this question humbled m
got it right on my first try woohoo! What helped me figure it out is typing to loop back to the point. Kind of like a circle when reading it!
1
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.
178 comments
My brain is getting better at recognizing that when they keep reusing very specific phrases they are cluing you in that you are supposed to use that as one of the terms to connect to the conclusion. "makes sense" appeared way too many times for it to be unimportant
Not sure why these "harder difficulty" ones are much easier for me than the easy ones...
uhhh was rocking this section until this q :(
FML
The broader the answer the closer it is to being the correct answer--answer choices that mirror the stimulus too closely are often traps!!!
darn///retook it 3-4 times and managed to get it wrong that many times--oh my brain where art thou
Man. I completely missed the "no sense" part and chose B like an IDIOT! I have to learn to read the entire question.
i was stuck on D for so long and then I went with C, I'm mad.
I think I'm realizing that my problem is correctly identifying where the gap is. When I identify it correctly, I generally get them right, but when I don't I'm way off.
The only reason I got this question right was because I wrote out the premises' conditionals and the conclusion's conditional like you taught us. Doing that made me notice the giant hole in the major premise's support for the conclusion. It would've never clicked for me otherwise.
Major Premise: Love-Feeling -> /PromiseSense
Conclusion: /Love-Feeling
Only way to get to conclusion (i.e., which sufficient condition leads to this conclusion)? Contrapositive of Major Premise: PromiseSense -> /Love-Feeling
Oh, that's D!
Insane Question.
Honestly this one made no sense to me omg
It is so refreshing to open the comments after bombing a question to see everyone else feels the same. So glad we have each other lmao
these are impossible
I'm going to throw myself off a bridge if every question of this subtype is this stupid
with all due respect, this question is fucking nonsense. this is a terrible argument. if you squint hard enough any of these could be correct.
....what?
KMS
i love it when i get hard questions like this right but struggle over the one or two start difficulty questions because i overthink it
ngl i think the reason why im having so much trouble understanding this question is because its a shit argument
Been reviewing this question a couple different times now and still struggle to understand how D fills the gap between the major premise and conclusion. Anyone able to break it down in an easier way?? :///
can someone clarify what he means by "prescriptive" conclusion? I keep hearing that phrase, and I don't think I fully understand what it means. Does he mean that we need to translate the premises into a "should do xyz" statement?
kinda confused: it seems like the teachers prephrased anwer doesnt map on to the missing assumpion.
He says: If taking love to refer to feelings renders the marital vow nonsensical, then one should not take love in the context of a marital vow to refer to feelings.
But this still leaves open the possibility that marital vows could be nonsensical, and thus love in this context could refer to feelings.
This gap is fixed by D, which basically says that promises must make sense, which guarantees the conclusion.
Am i wrong here?
I got this right first try but took about 4 minutes. Here's my tip with these questions make sure you find the gap in the stimulus. There will always be a gap where something doesn't fully click. In this questions it was between "promises making no sense if out of one's control" and "no one should take love to be referring to a feeling."
How do these two really relate to each other? In the stimulus they do not. They feel like two independent claims because no one is saying that a promise cannot simply make no sense and still be made. For the authors conclusion to be true we have to prove that a non sensical promise cannot possibly be exist, because otherwise individuals would be able to take love to refer to a feeling they just would do so on a promise they know cannot be upheld and makes no sense.
In other words what D is actually saying is that if a promise is interpreted in a way that makes no sense it is not actually a promise at all. Thus for a marital vows to be a promise they by D's definition must make sense and in order to make sense they cannot be referring to love as a feeling as feelings our out of ones control.
The reason why B is incorrect is that is still allows for a promise to be a promise even if it makes no sense and is out of one's control. Thus one can promise another to "love them until death" fully knowing the promise makes no sense and refer to love as a feeling still. All B says is that one should not make the promises, but it fails to establish that one quite literally cannot make the promise.
Can somebody show the lawgic they wrote down for this one? I tried it 5 times and couldn't get it. I feel like the explanation didn't show the actual lawgic. Im frustrated bc the video doesn't use the method we were supposed to use. #feedback
I think by "this is a really tough question" you meant impossible. Just when I though I was starting to understand SA questions, this question humbled m
got it right on my first try woohoo! What helped me figure it out is typing to loop back to the point. Kind of like a circle when reading it!