this is the only time where i've successfully mapped out the premise to conclusion bridge and drew an argument that matched the answer choice almost verbatim
if you diagram the second sentence in the order that it is written, correct answer E mirrors it
Sentence: It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
>>remember the left side of "unless" is the sufficient condition and the right side of "unless" is the necessary condition.
>>negate "one expects" to "/expect"
Diagram: /acquire --> /expect
(E): Consumers who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information about a product they might purchase ------> do not expect that the benefits of acquiring such information will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
#feedback I think some easier "You Try" questions are needed here and there to motivate us... Back to back medium to difficult questions does something to my brain that I can't comprehend but I know it's not efficient as I need to take more breaks :(
Is AC D explanation wrong? It says "the conclusion makes a claim about the set of consumers who don't bother acquiring such information. That they are behaving irrationally." I thought the stim is asserting that they ARE thereby behaving RATIONALLY. #help
Honestly, when I see these questions, its much easier to see it on my BR than on my first try. Its frustrating, but I completely understand why I got it wrong, I just wish I did that on my first try :/
I crossed out the two starting with “rational consumers” without reading the rest because I thought that it narrowed the possibilities too much, we’re concerned with consumers at large, not just rational consumers.
I crossed out B relatively quickly once I realized it just said: “When irrational to acquire information, it would be irrational to acquire information.” Once I read it like that, I realized “oh wow, this is saying and doing absolutely nothing.”
Spent forever on this one and while I now understand why E is right, I still can't understand why C is wrong-- his explanation is doing nothing for me. Any other ways to explain it?
I recommend going over the assumption section (which includes the sufficient assumption and necessary assumption) of the loop hole. JY's methods have been working really well for me except this section. Pretty much you want to carefully read the stimulus, see what the premises are. See what the conclusion is, and try to find a weakness in the argument. The answer choice will answer that weakness. keep in mind that the weakness can be very subtle. It could be that the subject of the premises and the conclusion are slightly different and the answer would tie the subjects together to make the conclusion true.
Remember, the premises in the stem are ALWAYS true. the conclusion is ALWAYS true. Use this to your advantage.
And remember don't automatically fill in gaps yourself. Don't give the stem any benefit of the doubt. This mindset will help you find an answer choice that fills that gap.
I was still a little bit confused with AC C but I kind of connected it back to the lawgic statement for those of you still struggling.
Note that AC C is actually materializing the benefits. Saying that these benefits usually do not outweigh the cost and difficulty. This is very different from the expectation of the benefits to not outweigh the costs. More specifcially it could be that even though this usually happens, a consumer could still expect something else. Because this AC is not an expectation, I thought that "hey that will not trigger our conditional". NOTE that our lawgic relationship is based on an EXPECTATION, not whether something usually happens. When I looked back at my lawgic, I realized that whether benefits usually outweigh costs or not is NOT RELEVENT as we are interested in the expectation.
I love mapping out the stimulus in lawgic perfectly but still getting the question wrong because my eyes glazed over at the long answer choices ;-;
8
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.
152 comments
I still don't understand the difference between D and E for some reason.
this is the only time where i've successfully mapped out the premise to conclusion bridge and drew an argument that matched the answer choice almost verbatim
if you diagram the second sentence in the order that it is written, correct answer E mirrors it
Sentence: It is rational not to acquire such information unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
>>remember the left side of "unless" is the sufficient condition and the right side of "unless" is the necessary condition.
>>negate "one expects" to "/expect"
Diagram: /acquire --> /expect
(E): Consumers who do not bother to acquire complete detailed information about a product they might purchase ------> do not expect that the benefits of acquiring such information will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so.
damn grammar is king till the day i die ig
Pay attention to grammar.
Pay attention to grammar.
PAY ATTENTION TO GRAMMAR...note to self.
/ expect benefits outweigh cost -> rational to not acquire
assumption: / acquire -> / expect benefits outweigh cost
-----
/ acquire -> rational to not acquire
(plain lawgic below)
B -> C
assumption: A -> B
-------
A -> C
because A -> B-> C = A -> C
i'm gonna fling myself out the window. it's been fun guys
Grammar parsing is king.
past 3 5 difficult answers ive gotten right somehow despite not fulling understand just going off gut feeling. Is this good or bad
wtf
my brain is mush after this
#feedback I think some easier "You Try" questions are needed here and there to motivate us... Back to back medium to difficult questions does something to my brain that I can't comprehend but I know it's not efficient as I need to take more breaks :(
I need to go touch grass after this one
Is AC D explanation wrong? It says "the conclusion makes a claim about the set of consumers who don't bother acquiring such information. That they are behaving irrationally." I thought the stim is asserting that they ARE thereby behaving RATIONALLY. #help
Honestly, when I see these questions, its much easier to see it on my BR than on my first try. Its frustrating, but I completely understand why I got it wrong, I just wish I did that on my first try :/
I crossed out the two starting with “rational consumers” without reading the rest because I thought that it narrowed the possibilities too much, we’re concerned with consumers at large, not just rational consumers.
I crossed out B relatively quickly once I realized it just said: “When irrational to acquire information, it would be irrational to acquire information.” Once I read it like that, I realized “oh wow, this is saying and doing absolutely nothing.”
Spent forever on this one and while I now understand why E is right, I still can't understand why C is wrong-- his explanation is doing nothing for me. Any other ways to explain it?
got it right on my first attempt but almost smashed my computer
hardest question i've ever seen and bro decides not to map it out. I know the difficulty of this question is its grammar but like plz.
I recommend going over the assumption section (which includes the sufficient assumption and necessary assumption) of the loop hole. JY's methods have been working really well for me except this section. Pretty much you want to carefully read the stimulus, see what the premises are. See what the conclusion is, and try to find a weakness in the argument. The answer choice will answer that weakness. keep in mind that the weakness can be very subtle. It could be that the subject of the premises and the conclusion are slightly different and the answer would tie the subjects together to make the conclusion true.
Remember, the premises in the stem are ALWAYS true. the conclusion is ALWAYS true. Use this to your advantage.
And remember don't automatically fill in gaps yourself. Don't give the stem any benefit of the doubt. This mindset will help you find an answer choice that fills that gap.
I got this right and came to the comments to feel good about it.
Because i got the last 4 "5 difficulty" questions wrong in a row :,(
i got the right answer and then gaslit myself to think I was wrong on BR. :(
y u bully me
I was still a little bit confused with AC C but I kind of connected it back to the lawgic statement for those of you still struggling.
Note that AC C is actually materializing the benefits. Saying that these benefits usually do not outweigh the cost and difficulty. This is very different from the expectation of the benefits to not outweigh the costs. More specifcially it could be that even though this usually happens, a consumer could still expect something else. Because this AC is not an expectation, I thought that "hey that will not trigger our conditional". NOTE that our lawgic relationship is based on an EXPECTATION, not whether something usually happens. When I looked back at my lawgic, I realized that whether benefits usually outweigh costs or not is NOT RELEVENT as we are interested in the expectation.
I love mapping out the stimulus in lawgic perfectly but still getting the question wrong because my eyes glazed over at the long answer choices ;-;