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?
#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
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?
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?
I feel that comparing these question types to PSA to such an extent has made the curriculum confusing, thinking about them in an MSS/MBT sense or even standalone would be more beneficial because I really don't see how we're finding the rule, we're looking for an answer choice that would make the argument solid, less vulnerable - not really trying to justify it or search for the rule it conveys
I got this question right by treating it like a principle question in my mind (I'm sure this is not a good idea but I have been struggling with sufficient assumption for days now).
I asked myself what the underlying idea driving the argument was and landed on B.
I got it right but I am wondering if this is a bad way to continue going about these questions. Did anyone else do this? Am I screwing myself over? Help
The first part of answer choice A is cancelled out by the second premise, so really what we'd be left with if we chose A is:
Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. GAP IN ARGUMENT. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.
Ok, but there is a still a disconnect between the desired voting behavior of the council and that of the voting public. What assumption would make the conclusion absolutely assured, in all its potential behavorial variations and etc? Answer Choice B.
Just for fun, if we combined the condition of A with the sufficient condition of B, we'd get:
Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal should not be decided by the city's voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.
#feedback How do you decide not to use "members of city council ←s→should vote against" as the conclusion? I have a hard time, when working through the problem before JY explains, deciding why I shouldn't use the ←s→ format. It makes so much sense why JY went through the process he did, but only after. Did anyone else, if you tried this by yourself first, want to use the ←s→ in the conclusion and kick ups "members of city council" into the domain?
I viewed this as the stimulus saying either they vote against the proposal or abstain (thus we know there are two options possible) and from this, we are told that if all abstain, the city voters will decide. It goes on to conclude that one member of the. city council should AT LEAST vote which implies that the activist believes it should not be up to the city voters to decide the decision. AC B. is correct since it says that the city voters should not decide. By choosing this we are making sure the arugment follws.
Can someone explain to me in similar words what JY means when he says we are dealing with prescriptive and descriptive premises? This is really confusing me I wish he would use fewer words when explaining if you get what I mean lol. Over explaining tends to be confusing
I felt like this question was an absolute cakewalk compared to the last two. The last two SA 5/5 questions had me questioning my understanding of everything. Jeez. I guess that's why we just keep going.
I am finding things are starting to really click by gaining a comprehension of the grammar and structure. I was able to identify the sub conclusion/major premise, premise, and conclusion successfully which allowed me to understand what was being said and what was missing. A month ago I had a really hard time confidently labelling the stimulus. Practice and continued work does pay off. If you are struggling stay patient and persistent. It will come!
In these tutorials I keep hearing premises referred to as "prescriptive" or "descriptive" and wondering why that's significant to point out?
2
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.
59 comments
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?
#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
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?
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...
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?
Do we always have to look for the contrapositive with sufficient assumption q's?
I feel that comparing these question types to PSA to such an extent has made the curriculum confusing, thinking about them in an MSS/MBT sense or even standalone would be more beneficial because I really don't see how we're finding the rule, we're looking for an answer choice that would make the argument solid, less vulnerable - not really trying to justify it or search for the rule it conveys
Every question I have got wrong in this section has been 50/50. This is so discouraging :(
I got this question right by treating it like a principle question in my mind (I'm sure this is not a good idea but I have been struggling with sufficient assumption for days now).
I asked myself what the underlying idea driving the argument was and landed on B.
I got it right but I am wondering if this is a bad way to continue going about these questions. Did anyone else do this? Am I screwing myself over? Help
I get it now.
The first part of answer choice A is cancelled out by the second premise, so really what we'd be left with if we chose A is:
Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. GAP IN ARGUMENT. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.
Ok, but there is a still a disconnect between the desired voting behavior of the council and that of the voting public. What assumption would make the conclusion absolutely assured, in all its potential behavorial variations and etc? Answer Choice B.
Just for fun, if we combined the condition of A with the sufficient condition of B, we'd get:
Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal should not be decided by the city's voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.
Right? #feedback
#feedback How do you decide not to use "members of city council ←s→should vote against" as the conclusion? I have a hard time, when working through the problem before JY explains, deciding why I shouldn't use the ←s→ format. It makes so much sense why JY went through the process he did, but only after. Did anyone else, if you tried this by yourself first, want to use the ←s→ in the conclusion and kick ups "members of city council" into the domain?
I viewed this as the stimulus saying either they vote against the proposal or abstain (thus we know there are two options possible) and from this, we are told that if all abstain, the city voters will decide. It goes on to conclude that one member of the. city council should AT LEAST vote which implies that the activist believes it should not be up to the city voters to decide the decision. AC B. is correct since it says that the city voters should not decide. By choosing this we are making sure the arugment follws.
Can someone explain to me in similar words what JY means when he says we are dealing with prescriptive and descriptive premises? This is really confusing me I wish he would use fewer words when explaining if you get what I mean lol. Over explaining tends to be confusing
If the AC is a bi-conditional, is it usually a trap AC? Is the correct AC ever a bi-conditional?
I felt like this question was an absolute cakewalk compared to the last two. The last two SA 5/5 questions had me questioning my understanding of everything. Jeez. I guess that's why we just keep going.
I liked when lessons had the "Let's Review" takeaways section at the end. #feedback
I am finding things are starting to really click by gaining a comprehension of the grammar and structure. I was able to identify the sub conclusion/major premise, premise, and conclusion successfully which allowed me to understand what was being said and what was missing. A month ago I had a really hard time confidently labelling the stimulus. Practice and continued work does pay off. If you are struggling stay patient and persistent. It will come!
In these tutorials I keep hearing premises referred to as "prescriptive" or "descriptive" and wondering why that's significant to point out?