Not sure if this helps anyone, but the way I broke down the argument to help me understand it in my WAJ was like this:
Premise 1 (Major Premise/Sub Conclusion): Love = feeling → promise makes no sense
Why P1? Because of,
Premise 2: Feelings → not controllable
Premise 3: Not controllable → promise makes no sense
Chain: Feelings → promise makes no sense (VALID and aligns with Premise 1)
Therefore, Love ≠ Feeling, or "Love should not be interpreted as feelings."
But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interpretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.
Please let me know if I made a mistake since I'm learning just as everyone else is!
Wait what I got these level 4 5 questions in 40 seconds with certainty but getting thrown off by level 1 2 3 Question? Am I smart or dumb ? LSAT’s super weird
I find it weird that, for this question type, I am better at the harder questions and somehow worse at the easier ones? i have not missed a level 4 or 5 question and have been answering very confidently in time, yet I have missed level 3's or have gotten stuck time wise on them. Any possible explanations for this?
i got this question right (granted, i did go 2 mins over) but ive figured out that i cannot for the life of me diagram, so i am focusing on POE and being hyper vigilant about word choices in answer choices, and that is doing me pretty good!
these are starting to make sense, I think the main trick is accurately pointing out what is the main conclusion/argument here and then from there POE based on what is relevant to the argument and makes sense given the premises
got it wrong in actual take, right in BR when I realized the conclusion was referring to the people's INTERPRETATION of that vow being a feeling rather than making that actual promise itself. God I need to read way more carefully.
Again, first thing after reading stem is to get down the conclusion. It's apparent we can lose marital vows and no one/anyone so:
C: don't take love to refer to feelings
The MV contain UDDUP is just context, so throw that aside.
P1: if love = feeling -> promise sense
P2: (why p1?) feelings controlled
P3: control = sense
At this point there is a gap between "things making sense" in the premises and not finding anything about "things making sense" in the conclusion. The answer will have to bridge that gap.
A) missing sense reference. Restates P2 differently
B) missing sense reference. It doesn't tie to the conclusion. Trap, but also simple pass
C) missing sense reference. It ties to conclusion, but not the premises to the conclusion
D) DOES have sense reference. Seems logically sound with other premises. Let's check if E is better.
E) DOES have sense reference. But this would also seem to make it valid that one could argue against ever getting married, which is not what the conclusion is stating. Also not seeing where we've already encountered promises that can't be kept.
Looking back at D, it is using interpret in conjunction with promises and their sense. That seems very much aligned with the conclusion.
227 comments
respectfully, this made no sense. Hopefully I dont encounter it on the LSAT but be fr, this is bs
Man, this one hurt mapped it perfectly the only thing that through me off was the usage of the word interpreted... going to be a long couple months
this one hurt
Not sure if this helps anyone, but the way I broke down the argument to help me understand it in my WAJ was like this:
Premise 1 (Major Premise/Sub Conclusion): Love = feeling → promise makes no sense
Why P1? Because of,
Premise 2: Feelings → not controllable
Premise 3: Not controllable → promise makes no sense
Chain: Feelings → promise makes no sense (VALID and aligns with Premise 1)
Therefore, Love ≠ Feeling, or "Love should not be interpreted as feelings."
But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interpretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.
Please let me know if I made a mistake since I'm learning just as everyone else is!
Wait what I got these level 4 5 questions in 40 seconds with certainty but getting thrown off by level 1 2 3 Question? Am I smart or dumb ? LSAT’s super weird
I find it weird that, for this question type, I am better at the harder questions and somehow worse at the easier ones? i have not missed a level 4 or 5 question and have been answering very confidently in time, yet I have missed level 3's or have gotten stuck time wise on them. Any possible explanations for this?
my mood is constantly fluctuating throughout this course.
not sure why these questions are so hard for me. The videos are not clicking yet either, any advice?
This threw me for a loop!!!
"Don't feel bad if you didn't get this question right...."
Too late. Just when I think I couldn't feel worse about myself, I get this question and realize I can.
I did everything right but threw D away because it said interpreted... things like this keep happening and idk why
ouch
extra 9 seconds :((
@sarahbalfoul sometimes commenting is unnecessary :))
@SophieBaker :((
i got this question right (granted, i did go 2 mins over) but ive figured out that i cannot for the life of me diagram, so i am focusing on POE and being hyper vigilant about word choices in answer choices, and that is doing me pretty good!
Under the time on a level 5 difficulty. No better feeling.
i only got it right because ive seen this question recently.
I'm going to pull all of my hair out. ALL of it.
@Njbrunette i already have
these are starting to make sense, I think the main trick is accurately pointing out what is the main conclusion/argument here and then from there POE based on what is relevant to the argument and makes sense given the premises
got it wrong in actual take, right in BR when I realized the conclusion was referring to the people's INTERPRETATION of that vow being a feeling rather than making that actual promise itself. God I need to read way more carefully.
back to back 1st question wrong blind review right...
Again, first thing after reading stem is to get down the conclusion. It's apparent we can lose marital vows and no one/anyone so:
C: don't take love to refer to feelings
The MV contain UDDUP is just context, so throw that aside.
P1: if love = feeling -> promise
senseP2: (why p1?) feelings
controlledP3:
control=senseAt this point there is a gap between "things making sense" in the premises and not finding anything about "things making sense" in the conclusion. The answer will have to bridge that gap.
A) missing sense reference. Restates P2 differently
B) missing sense reference. It doesn't tie to the conclusion. Trap, but also simple pass
C) missing sense reference. It ties to conclusion, but not the premises to the conclusion
D) DOES have sense reference. Seems logically sound with other premises. Let's check if E is better.
E) DOES have sense reference. But this would also seem to make it valid that one could argue against ever getting married, which is not what the conclusion is stating. Also not seeing where we've already encountered promises that can't be kept.
Looking back at D, it is using interpret in conjunction with promises and their sense. That seems very much aligned with the conclusion.
got this right but do not want to read why in fear of being confused LMAOO
I GOT IT RIGHT GUYS
... in 6 minutes and 37 seconds
@JunoGrace Hey boss, at least you beat me 💀 (8min 11 seconds)
This one got me, but I understand why the wrong answer is wrong and why D makes sense.