i have only gotten 3 questions correct in this entire section and this was the one I felt most confident about lol. got it in 3m bc i grouped health + wealth as happiness. u can't have one without the other
This one was pretty easy for me. I kinda had it in my head but then diagrammed it just to be 100% sure.. One should never sacrifice there health for money because no health = no happiness. Therefore you can then say that sacrificing your health is sacrificing your happiness and from there you can piece it together that the only time we should pursue wealth is when it doesn't come at the cost of our happiness absolutely.
im sorry but the explanations on some of these questions make the bridge to the answer choice more confusing. I fear it's not realistic for me to find an inferred mystery premise within the time limit to answer these questions. sometimes I have to watch these videos multiple times and even then I still don't understand.
Can someone please explain how "One should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money" would be "acquire money sacrifices health -> should not acquire money"...? When I first read this, the conditional that I drew up was "in order to acquire money, one should never sacrifice one's health" which would be "acquire money -> /sacrifice one'e health"...
I chose E because I did not confidently identify the conclusion. At this point you think I would because MC/MP is at the core of all the questions that got me this far, but for some reason, I totally neglected to do that here. If you identify that money is part of the conclusion, it is much easier to pick out what must happen for the conclusion to be true.
Got this in 3:22 when I almost gave up -- do not rush, allow yourself to really think through (they give you the conclusion--the correct answer choice should support the conclusion, much like a premise or principle would)
This question had me as confused as a homeless man on house arrest. I got it right after awhile but it was by far one of the most difficult questions I've seen.
These explanations have GOT to stop making such drastic leaps without referencing why something is being done. For instance, the reframing bit at the beginning, along with "kicking the sufficient conditions into the premise set", felt so overwhelming to have thrown at you. Just feel like the last three explanations have done nothing to actually help me understand where I went wrong. Maybe I need to go over the grammar portion again, because I am not getting these SA questions at all.
I went with A, but it didn't feel right because instead of feeling like an assumption, it felt like the conclusion. Turns out, it was pretty much just a restatement of the conclusion...which means that the conclusion is kind of an assumption? That doesn't make this confusing at all...
I realized during the blind review that this became much easier after I switched the placement of the premise and conclusion, and added a "thus," before the conclusion. Then I could see what needed to be assumed to make things logically work.
i definitely need to go back to the grammar section (I only completed 50%) because this section has me F'd up. I have no idea the difference between prescriptive v descriptive anything, idk what he means when he says kicking it up into the premise set. This is so frustrating ughhh
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!
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.
216 comments
OH MY GOD I FINALLY GOT ONE OF THESE RIGHT AND ITS A LVL 5 IM GONNA START CRYIHG
I knew it was A but went with C anyway
i have only gotten 3 questions correct in this entire section and this was the one I felt most confident about lol. got it in 3m bc i grouped health + wealth as happiness. u can't have one without the other
This makes no sense even after the explanation
Second guessed myself smh
This one was pretty easy for me. I kinda had it in my head but then diagrammed it just to be 100% sure.. One should never sacrifice there health for money because no health = no happiness. Therefore you can then say that sacrificing your health is sacrificing your happiness and from there you can piece it together that the only time we should pursue wealth is when it doesn't come at the cost of our happiness absolutely.
Got it....... after 30 minutes..........
These last few are diabolical
im sorry but the explanations on some of these questions make the bridge to the answer choice more confusing. I fear it's not realistic for me to find an inferred mystery premise within the time limit to answer these questions. sometimes I have to watch these videos multiple times and even then I still don't understand.
#PLEASE HELP I HAVE A 157...
Can someone please explain how "One should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money" would be "acquire money sacrifices health -> should not acquire money"...? When I first read this, the conditional that I drew up was "in order to acquire money, one should never sacrifice one's health" which would be "acquire money -> /sacrifice one'e health"...
Please help... please...
I chose E because I did not confidently identify the conclusion. At this point you think I would because MC/MP is at the core of all the questions that got me this far, but for some reason, I totally neglected to do that here. If you identify that money is part of the conclusion, it is much easier to pick out what must happen for the conclusion to be true.
Someone tell me that makes sense!
I cannot read the writing in the video. It makes the video very hard to follow and understand.
Got this in 3:22 when I almost gave up -- do not rush, allow yourself to really think through (they give you the conclusion--the correct answer choice should support the conclusion, much like a premise or principle would)
This question had me as confused as a homeless man on house arrest. I got it right after awhile but it was by far one of the most difficult questions I've seen.
These explanations have GOT to stop making such drastic leaps without referencing why something is being done. For instance, the reframing bit at the beginning, along with "kicking the sufficient conditions into the premise set", felt so overwhelming to have thrown at you. Just feel like the last three explanations have done nothing to actually help me understand where I went wrong. Maybe I need to go over the grammar portion again, because I am not getting these SA questions at all.
THREE CURVEBALLS, Lord help me I can't do this
I hope the November lsat chills out with these :(
I went with A, but it didn't feel right because instead of feeling like an assumption, it felt like the conclusion. Turns out, it was pretty much just a restatement of the conclusion...which means that the conclusion is kind of an assumption? That doesn't make this confusing at all...
I realized during the blind review that this became much easier after I switched the placement of the premise and conclusion, and added a "thus," before the conclusion. Then I could see what needed to be assumed to make things logically work.
Jesus I am getting COOOOOOOOKED on these
i am not getting these level 5 questions
Yeah so today was not the day to humble me severely over and over again
I got this correct initially but switched to [E] during blind review because the "only if" was taunting me...
crashing out
i definitely need to go back to the grammar section (I only completed 50%) because this section has me F'd up. I have no idea the difference between prescriptive v descriptive anything, idk what he means when he says kicking it up into the premise set. This is so frustrating ughhh