It could just be me, but some of these SA questions I am getting right very easily, and others I cannot make sense of them for the life of me. This is going to be a long unit.
When I read B, I knew it made sense but then I was like let me not make an assumption on what the activist is saying so thats why I went for D. But, I see that D is backwards. UGH
My understanding of building the descriptive-to-prescriptive conclusion bridge.... There will often be a hidden major premise/minor conclusion that you can reveal through taking the contrapositive of one premise and connecting it to another premise. Make that hidden descriptive premise prescriptive and then there's your answer choice!
Got it but does D not just confuse sufficient for necessary? Y'all are saying it turned into a biconditional, but I just took it to be that it was backwards
This one seemed too simple. I was able to make two assumptions as to why it would be required for one of the council members voted against it. It wouldn't go to vote my public.
I think for this question, writing out the premises and conclusion is especially helpful. When you stack them up, you'll notice this yuuuuge gap between them - like the argument jumps immediately from "if we (the council) don't do this thing, then the citizens will get to do this thing" to "so we should definitely do this thing." Intuitively, the only thing left for you to mentally bridge is that the council dudes definitely don't want the citizens to do the thing.
I'm confused because in the prior SA questions, we had to explicitly search for the desired conclusion in the answer choices, and now, we're still technically doing SA questions but looking for the desired conclusion is not a criteria anymore? could someone help explain how this is the case
Quick question regarding the structure of these lessons: to this point in my LR study plan, whenever these lessons pop up that don't prompt me to actually "do" the question displayed, I always just watch J.Y. do the question all the way through and move on.
However, would it be more beneficial for me to actually attempt the question itself, and then watch the lesson?
@ArcherHeeren Yes. I believe it useful not only as practice, but getting it correct through your way of thinking can be beneficial in making the problem make more sense in a breakdown, than J.Y.'s videos.
personally, I believe he goes into too much depth or over analyzes some things that end up making the breakdown more convoluted than it needs to be, but nonetheless that is his job.
This section has been kicking my ass a bit, but I feel like nailing down the conclusion gets you 2/3 the way there.
Then, if you have a rough idea of what the hypothesis is saying, you can typically get to the right answer. I was getting very hung up on parsing the language of the hypothesis which was not feeling like a particularly wise use of time on these medium-difficulty questions.
Does anyone else just do the questions, if they get it right they move on, if they get it wrong they watch the video? That's been my method to avoid wasting time, am I missing out on too much?
@Jake. If I cannot explain why the other answers are wrong in my BR then I review the video as well so I can be aware of traps and common mistakes that can trip me later.
#feedback when you press show question, you should allow for us to highlight the stimulus so that we can pretend its a practice question. its impossible for me to try to find an answer if i cant mark up the stimulus. i want to be able to try to guess the answer before i view the lesson
@meepmeep yes I do it before I hear him explain anything. I think if someone explain each question we would all get them right….I press and read the question and do it myself. Sometimes I don’t even see the answer as yet I just pause again and see if that’s a good answer or not… then listen
@hannahhuynh that makes so much sense. However, to play devils advocate here. The premise is saying any council member should abstain or vote against, thereby implying that they dont want the propsal to be passed. "A" is saying that if all members abstain, then voters will pass in favor, which is exactly what premise doesn't want......I'm confused why abstaining and voting against doesn't imply that you dont want voters to vote because they will vote in favor....
If B did not exist would A be the correct answer? A seems to require more assumptions and B just rules out the need for any assumptions. Am I understanding this correctly, or would A be incorrect even on its own without it just being weaker than B?
I don't think so because it is already mostly stated in the stimulus. It can't compensate for the jump from the second premise to the conclusion. At least for SA questions, there shouldn't really be any gaps in the logical flow, and A leaves a big one. Why shouldn't voters determine the vote? Why shouldn't the proposal pass? Unless A included an answer to one of these questions, I don't think it would ever be a correct answer. Maybe it could be though if this were a strengthen question and it was the best choice but idk.
@chloebarnett144 IDK....based on your logic, A should answer why the proposal shouldn't pass or why voters shouldnt determine the vote....but B doesn't explain the WHY either. B just says proposal shouldnt be decided by voters, it doesnt say WHY.
What is bro yapping about?????? Obviously we just need to complete it by saying the city members shouldn't have control over it. These abstract examples and mapping out in lawgic are so unhelpful...
I chose A. because I thought we could properly infer from the premise the "additional assumption that the proposal shouldn’t pass," which would allow us to "contrapose on the conditional to arrive at the desired conclusion." (as JY says in the written explanation for A.).
When the stimulus says "any member...ought either to vote against the proposal or abstain," is it not reasonable to infer the activists believes the proposal shouldn't pass?
(I thought this was one of those situations where there's an implied major premise/sub-conclusion that you have to make explicit to make the entire logical chain make sense.)
IF that's true, then the fact that voters would decide in favor would fail the necessary condition and therefore also the sufficient condition ==> /all members abstain = at least one member vote against.
Why is it improper to infer from the stimulus that the proposal shouldn't pass?
My internal reasoning for accepting JY's rationale for excluding option A is that option A is merely an extension of premise 2. This distinction matters because if you assume that "activists believe the proposal shouldn't pass," it is a plausible statement, but it shifts the conclusion of the stimulus from "at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal" to "the proposal shouldn't pass." While we may intuitively process these as equivalent, there could be underlying reasons why activists do not want the bill to be voted on by the public while still believing it shouldn't pass. For example, publicly deciding on the proposal could backfire on them for strategic or political reasons.
Returning to an LSAT-style explanation, strictly analyzing the relationship between the premise and conclusion, the premise is only activated when we assume that the bill should not be voted on by the citizens.
79 comments
It could just be me, but some of these SA questions I am getting right very easily, and others I cannot make sense of them for the life of me. This is going to be a long unit.
When I read B, I knew it made sense but then I was like let me not make an assumption on what the activist is saying so thats why I went for D. But, I see that D is backwards. UGH
im confused
My understanding of building the descriptive-to-prescriptive conclusion bridge.... There will often be a hidden major premise/minor conclusion that you can reveal through taking the contrapositive of one premise and connecting it to another premise. Make that hidden descriptive premise prescriptive and then there's your answer choice!
Got it but does D not just confuse sufficient for necessary? Y'all are saying it turned into a biconditional, but I just took it to be that it was backwards
@RamseyEaton I thought so too
okok gotcha
This one seemed too simple. I was able to make two assumptions as to why it would be required for one of the council members voted against it. It wouldn't go to vote my public.
I think for this question, writing out the premises and conclusion is especially helpful. When you stack them up, you'll notice this yuuuuge gap between them - like the argument jumps immediately from "if we (the council) don't do this thing, then the citizens will get to do this thing" to "so we should definitely do this thing." Intuitively, the only thing left for you to mentally bridge is that the council dudes definitely don't want the citizens to do the thing.
I think the goal is to worry about understanding rather than timing first and then worry about timing later. I think that's my issue.
B just seemed too simple
I'm confused because in the prior SA questions, we had to explicitly search for the desired conclusion in the answer choices, and now, we're still technically doing SA questions but looking for the desired conclusion is not a criteria anymore? could someone help explain how this is the case
@shay_lsat i THINK for this one, we r like adding an assumption to the premise to bridge the gap in the premises
Quick question regarding the structure of these lessons: to this point in my LR study plan, whenever these lessons pop up that don't prompt me to actually "do" the question displayed, I always just watch J.Y. do the question all the way through and move on.
However, would it be more beneficial for me to actually attempt the question itself, and then watch the lesson?
@ArcherHeeren Yes. I believe it useful not only as practice, but getting it correct through your way of thinking can be beneficial in making the problem make more sense in a breakdown, than J.Y.'s videos.
personally, I believe he goes into too much depth or over analyzes some things that end up making the breakdown more convoluted than it needs to be, but nonetheless that is his job.
@ArcherHeeren you can click "show question" to attempt the question before the video starts
@ArcherHeeren I always attempt the question first. Just hit "Show Question" at the top.
This section has been kicking my ass a bit, but I feel like nailing down the conclusion gets you 2/3 the way there.
Then, if you have a rough idea of what the hypothesis is saying, you can typically get to the right answer. I was getting very hung up on parsing the language of the hypothesis which was not feeling like a particularly wise use of time on these medium-difficulty questions.
Does anyone else just do the questions, if they get it right they move on, if they get it wrong they watch the video? That's been my method to avoid wasting time, am I missing out on too much?
@Jake. If I cannot explain why the other answers are wrong in my BR then I review the video as well so I can be aware of traps and common mistakes that can trip me later.
#feedback when you press show question, you should allow for us to highlight the stimulus so that we can pretend its a practice question. its impossible for me to try to find an answer if i cant mark up the stimulus. i want to be able to try to guess the answer before i view the lesson
@meepmeep I pause all the videos and use my own paper to guess or attempt the question. I don’t waste any question
@DeeTee out of curiosity do you do it before watching the video at all or do you listen to him explain the stimulus first
@meepmeep yes I do it before I hear him explain anything. I think if someone explain each question we would all get them right….I press and read the question and do it myself. Sometimes I don’t even see the answer as yet I just pause again and see if that’s a good answer or not… then listen
@hannahhuynh Thank you for posting this. That is how I was able to find the correct answer.
@hannahhuynh that makes so much sense. However, to play devils advocate here. The premise is saying any council member should abstain or vote against, thereby implying that they dont want the propsal to be passed. "A" is saying that if all members abstain, then voters will pass in favor, which is exactly what premise doesn't want......I'm confused why abstaining and voting against doesn't imply that you dont want voters to vote because they will vote in favor....
PSA overcomplicates SA unnecessarily. I prefer diagramming.
#feedback The show question feature on some lessons in this section have not been working.
#feedback Im confused how to differentiate if Im looking at a SArule questions or an SAappliation question
How do I know based on the QS and stimulus which I should be looking out for?
ive been doing so well in this curriculum then suddenly this last section has me getting everything wrong.
If B did not exist would A be the correct answer? A seems to require more assumptions and B just rules out the need for any assumptions. Am I understanding this correctly, or would A be incorrect even on its own without it just being weaker than B?
I don't think so because it is already mostly stated in the stimulus. It can't compensate for the jump from the second premise to the conclusion. At least for SA questions, there shouldn't really be any gaps in the logical flow, and A leaves a big one. Why shouldn't voters determine the vote? Why shouldn't the proposal pass? Unless A included an answer to one of these questions, I don't think it would ever be a correct answer. Maybe it could be though if this were a strengthen question and it was the best choice but idk.
@chloebarnett144 IDK....based on your logic, A should answer why the proposal shouldn't pass or why voters shouldnt determine the vote....but B doesn't explain the WHY either. B just says proposal shouldnt be decided by voters, it doesnt say WHY.
What is bro yapping about?????? Obviously we just need to complete it by saying the city members shouldn't have control over it. These abstract examples and mapping out in lawgic are so unhelpful...
yea I feel like they overcomplicate so much of these for no reason
@dylanemein NO FR. like when he started off about iced cream but added nothing helpful with that analogy....
Being completely honest here, I suck at these SA questions. But this question I got so easily lol. Surprised it's a 4 star
I chose A. because I thought we could properly infer from the premise the "additional assumption that the proposal shouldn’t pass," which would allow us to "contrapose on the conditional to arrive at the desired conclusion." (as JY says in the written explanation for A.).
When the stimulus says "any member...ought either to vote against the proposal or abstain," is it not reasonable to infer the activists believes the proposal shouldn't pass?
(I thought this was one of those situations where there's an implied major premise/sub-conclusion that you have to make explicit to make the entire logical chain make sense.)
IF that's true, then the fact that voters would decide in favor would fail the necessary condition and therefore also the sufficient condition ==> /all members abstain = at least one member vote against.
Why is it improper to infer from the stimulus that the proposal shouldn't pass?
My internal reasoning for accepting JY's rationale for excluding option A is that option A is merely an extension of premise 2. This distinction matters because if you assume that "activists believe the proposal shouldn't pass," it is a plausible statement, but it shifts the conclusion of the stimulus from "at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal" to "the proposal shouldn't pass." While we may intuitively process these as equivalent, there could be underlying reasons why activists do not want the bill to be voted on by the public while still believing it shouldn't pass. For example, publicly deciding on the proposal could backfire on them for strategic or political reasons.
Returning to an LSAT-style explanation, strictly analyzing the relationship between the premise and conclusion, the premise is only activated when we assume that the bill should not be voted on by the citizens.
Do we always have to look for the contrapositive with sufficient assumption q's?