to whoever is feeling discouraged bc of these SA questions, just know that more than half of these highly intellectual individuals on here................are as equally struggling
I'm usually able to answer these questions by using POE to assume each AC is true and then eliminate them one by one from there mentally. That's what allowed me to answer this question.
There is a limit to what I can model in my head though. Like a couple lessons back, there was a Level 5 question about finding sentient beings outside outside our solar system. That question had far too many words and linked conditionals for me to model it in my head. So, I had to write down the premises and conclusions, then swap out each AC one by one.
My problem is that I feel like J.Ys videos are made from the perspective of someone that already knows the answer, and then chooses the easiest method to get there. But we don't know that.
Why choose to model this question with a diagram? We didn't do that in the other questions. And then jump straight to the answer as B? I doubt that anybody solves questions like this.
#feedback If possible, 7sage should create videos of people who solve LSAT questions that they see for the first time out loud under timed conditions. Every solution video takes 5x, 6x, 7x the time you have to actually solve the question and I think it makes us plateau.
If we all had 8 minutes and 29 to answer each question we'd smash the exam. It is the time limit that is killer.
I usually take a long time on questions, but this one threw me for a loop. When we just worked on very formal logic training regarding PSA/Principle, this one was a mess. I diagrammed and looked at Some Before All and Most Before All. I finally got the answer right due to hunting for my answer and finding, via grammar parsing, that every other answer choice was dumb.
This might not be an accurate question, or a question at all, but I thought to myself after two minutes that I should be diagramming, then diagrammed for a minute, and stared at my diagram for 30 minutes trying to put puzzle pieces together for some form of a logical argument I could make.
I realized that the stimulus gives me an easy out, that if both pools contain the same amount of stuff, then the pool that contains the more water (or more etching tools that act as engraving tools) then logically it follows that more etching tools will be used as engraving tools than not. Yea, just giving my feedback on this question that was superbly tough for me.
sweet jesus got this right but it took me 4 minutes. I kept getting lost in the stimulus and trying to figure out the logic of the bad answers and forgetting what I was trying to prove ( engraving>/engraving)
A) All tools used for engraving are etching tools as well
Doesnt matter and I already assumed this.
B) There are as many pin-tipped etching tools as there are bladed etching tools.
guarantees the conc. If there are 100 bladed and 100 pin tip, then 100 engraving from pintip and even if just 1 bladed is for engraving then the conclusion follows. 101 engraving 99 /engraving.
I know we haven't gone over flaws in the modules yet, but if you have background knowledge on flaws, I find that it is helpful to read these arguments thinking about what the flaw about the argument could be. What's missing? And if you use the assumption, it would make the argument valid. Idk if that makes sense or is dumb but maybe it helps someone else.
I did bladed -s--> engraving
bladed -s--> /engraving
pin tipped --> engraving
the assumption i had written down was the amount of /engraving bladed is less than bladed + pin tipped combined
I diagrammed it and was so disappointed to get it wrong twice--oh my soul. SO sometimes it helps to just draw and visualize the arguments like JYP is doing here...
The reason for why E is wrong feels weak. The stimulus states that all pin-tipped etching tools are used for engraving, which is not strong enough of a statement for us to infer they are ONLY used for engraving. So far we've been careful to precisely read the stimulus and not make assumptions, but for this question we do?
i dont get why most of the logic that has been taught has to do with very basic formal logic tools, then half the time we use visualizations of sets and stuff to explain the answer instead of just using the logic that we were taught. This makes it very confusing due to the lack of continuity, moreover it makes questions like these, that should be fairly easily, overly complicated since I am trying to turn them into the logical formulas YOU taught us.
guys I couldn't do these for the life of me, then I went and did SA drills on easiest, easy, and medium mode and it makes more sense now. go drill the easy questions then come back
I ended up choosing B as a result of POE and intuition. However, how does B support the conclusion? For this assumption to support the conclusion you would have to assume that the etching tools that are bladed and can engrave and etching tools that are pin-tipped outweigh bladed etching tools that do not engrave. Do we make this assumption because of the quantifier in the stim that says "some"? I'm confused lol.
if I see a question where the answer will hinge upon determining the size of sets relative to one another, should we just stipulate numbers to the sets first to kind of imagine what is going on, or simply be drawn to the answer that helps us to determine the size of the sets in the interest of time? It was very difficult for me to just visualize/fathom an answer that would justify the conclusion on a question like this. It would be faster for me to just check if the conditions of each answer choice trigger the validity of the conclusion. #help
I understand the difference between necessary and sufficient assumptions and why (C) is necessary but not sufficient.
The conclusion of the argument is supposed to follow logically if (B) is assumed. However, how can this be an airtight, valid argument if (C), a necessary assumption, isn't explicitly stated? Isn't there still a gap that needs to be addressed? I can see why (B), in combination with (C), would make the argument valid, but why is (B) alone enough? Is it because (C) is already reasonable interpretation of the stimulus? Why can't an etching tool be pin-tipped on one end and bladed on the other, or have two hinged arms (like a compass for drawing circles)?
Just now realizing the answer doesn't need to be necessary -- it just needs to be sufficient w. these SA questions --- I avoided B bc I was thinking that doesn't need to be the case to make the conclusion true! I think I'd like to go back and do these trial questions over again in a week with this new perspective... hope it helps because I've been in struggle city.
0
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.
109 comments
to whoever is feeling discouraged bc of these SA questions, just know that more than half of these highly intellectual individuals on here................are as equally struggling
POE is my best friend
Dude I suck at conditional reasoning.
OMG ANYONE FOLLOWING MY SAGA OF COMMENTS IN THIS UNIT I AM PROUD TO SAY I FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT THANK THE LORD
almost see this is a flaw question. FML FML
I'm usually able to answer these questions by using POE to assume each AC is true and then eliminate them one by one from there mentally. That's what allowed me to answer this question.
There is a limit to what I can model in my head though. Like a couple lessons back, there was a Level 5 question about finding sentient beings outside outside our solar system. That question had far too many words and linked conditionals for me to model it in my head. So, I had to write down the premises and conclusions, then swap out each AC one by one.
My problem is that I feel like J.Ys videos are made from the perspective of someone that already knows the answer, and then chooses the easiest method to get there. But we don't know that.
Why choose to model this question with a diagram? We didn't do that in the other questions. And then jump straight to the answer as B? I doubt that anybody solves questions like this.
#feedback If possible, 7sage should create videos of people who solve LSAT questions that they see for the first time out loud under timed conditions. Every solution video takes 5x, 6x, 7x the time you have to actually solve the question and I think it makes us plateau.
If we all had 8 minutes and 29 to answer each question we'd smash the exam. It is the time limit that is killer.
I usually take a long time on questions, but this one threw me for a loop. When we just worked on very formal logic training regarding PSA/Principle, this one was a mess. I diagrammed and looked at Some Before All and Most Before All. I finally got the answer right due to hunting for my answer and finding, via grammar parsing, that every other answer choice was dumb.
This might not be an accurate question, or a question at all, but I thought to myself after two minutes that I should be diagramming, then diagrammed for a minute, and stared at my diagram for 30 minutes trying to put puzzle pieces together for some form of a logical argument I could make.
I realized that the stimulus gives me an easy out, that if both pools contain the same amount of stuff, then the pool that contains the more water (or more etching tools that act as engraving tools) then logically it follows that more etching tools will be used as engraving tools than not. Yea, just giving my feedback on this question that was superbly tough for me.
finally got one right but took forever
sweet jesus got this right but it took me 4 minutes. I kept getting lost in the stimulus and trying to figure out the logic of the bad answers and forgetting what I was trying to prove ( engraving>/engraving)
A) All tools used for engraving are etching tools as well
Doesnt matter and I already assumed this.
B) There are as many pin-tipped etching tools as there are bladed etching tools.
guarantees the conc. If there are 100 bladed and 100 pin tip, then 100 engraving from pintip and even if just 1 bladed is for engraving then the conclusion follows. 101 engraving 99 /engraving.
I know we haven't gone over flaws in the modules yet, but if you have background knowledge on flaws, I find that it is helpful to read these arguments thinking about what the flaw about the argument could be. What's missing? And if you use the assumption, it would make the argument valid. Idk if that makes sense or is dumb but maybe it helps someone else.
I did bladed -s--> engraving
bladed -s--> /engraving
pin tipped --> engraving
the assumption i had written down was the amount of /engraving bladed is less than bladed + pin tipped combined
I diagrammed it and was so disappointed to get it wrong twice--oh my soul. SO sometimes it helps to just draw and visualize the arguments like JYP is doing here...
The reason for why E is wrong feels weak. The stimulus states that all pin-tipped etching tools are used for engraving, which is not strong enough of a statement for us to infer they are ONLY used for engraving. So far we've been careful to precisely read the stimulus and not make assumptions, but for this question we do?
broke my brain
i dont get why most of the logic that has been taught has to do with very basic formal logic tools, then half the time we use visualizations of sets and stuff to explain the answer instead of just using the logic that we were taught. This makes it very confusing due to the lack of continuity, moreover it makes questions like these, that should be fairly easily, overly complicated since I am trying to turn them into the logical formulas YOU taught us.
guys I couldn't do these for the life of me, then I went and did SA drills on easiest, easy, and medium mode and it makes more sense now. go drill the easy questions then come back
idk why I am just not getting the SA questions. None of the other question types have felt this difficult :/
this lesson's making me feel so stupid
wtf
math in da LSAT fo today
I ended up choosing B as a result of POE and intuition. However, how does B support the conclusion? For this assumption to support the conclusion you would have to assume that the etching tools that are bladed and can engrave and etching tools that are pin-tipped outweigh bladed etching tools that do not engrave. Do we make this assumption because of the quantifier in the stim that says "some"? I'm confused lol.
if I see a question where the answer will hinge upon determining the size of sets relative to one another, should we just stipulate numbers to the sets first to kind of imagine what is going on, or simply be drawn to the answer that helps us to determine the size of the sets in the interest of time? It was very difficult for me to just visualize/fathom an answer that would justify the conclusion on a question like this. It would be faster for me to just check if the conditions of each answer choice trigger the validity of the conclusion. #help
I understand the difference between necessary and sufficient assumptions and why (C) is necessary but not sufficient.
The conclusion of the argument is supposed to follow logically if (B) is assumed. However, how can this be an airtight, valid argument if (C), a necessary assumption, isn't explicitly stated? Isn't there still a gap that needs to be addressed? I can see why (B), in combination with (C), would make the argument valid, but why is (B) alone enough? Is it because (C) is already reasonable interpretation of the stimulus? Why can't an etching tool be pin-tipped on one end and bladed on the other, or have two hinged arms (like a compass for drawing circles)?
Dear lord please only give me one easy sufficient assumption question on my lsat
Just now realizing the answer doesn't need to be necessary -- it just needs to be sufficient w. these SA questions --- I avoided B bc I was thinking that doesn't need to be the case to make the conclusion true! I think I'd like to go back and do these trial questions over again in a week with this new perspective... hope it helps because I've been in struggle city.