How would you know to map it in reverse order if you were seeing this question for the first time? I got this question right because the answer linked the two premises that weren't in the conclusion, but I didn't actually understand why that was the missing link. #help
The reason I elimiated C as an answer was because I considered the first sentence to be an exception to the rule that C lays out. It wouldn't logically make sense to have a conditional that stipulates "/understand history -> attribute moral significance" if the first sentence states that it is likely for someone to see hisotry as the working out of moral themes if they held clear and unambiguous beliefs.
I guess the "unlikely" makes the latter claim more ambiguous and not conditional or formal logic, but is that line of reasoning valid? If it's not unlikely for someone to see history as the working out of moral themes if they have clear and unambiguous beliefs, is fair to infer that having clear and umambigous beliefs is an exception to the rule that only those who don't understand history attribute moral significance to historical events?
C wouldn't work, I thought, because if someone does understand history AND holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs, then it would not be unlikely for them to attribute moral significance to historical events.
I'm a bit confused on how to map these out on the actual test, do we have enough time to do it on scratch paper in a timed section? I do best on written paper exams to plot and map things out, but the LSAT isn't in that format right? :/
mapping things out confuses me even more. Keeping track of things in my head works better for me, but it does take me a little longer to complete the question -_-
once I drew out the logic in a map, it was easy to connect the missing premise
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!
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.
174 comments
I genuinely am getting more lost as I go forward each section
How would you know to map it in reverse order if you were seeing this question for the first time? I got this question right because the answer linked the two premises that weren't in the conclusion, but I didn't actually understand why that was the missing link. #help
omg yay! I got it right, this is the first one after like 8 questions. UGHHH
it took me 10 mins ;/
I got it right but it took soooo long, like how am i going to do that on test day and still be able to complete LR?
The reason I elimiated C as an answer was because I considered the first sentence to be an exception to the rule that C lays out. It wouldn't logically make sense to have a conditional that stipulates "/understand history -> attribute moral significance" if the first sentence states that it is likely for someone to see hisotry as the working out of moral themes if they held clear and unambiguous beliefs.
I guess the "unlikely" makes the latter claim more ambiguous and not conditional or formal logic, but is that line of reasoning valid? If it's not unlikely for someone to see history as the working out of moral themes if they have clear and unambiguous beliefs, is fair to infer that having clear and umambigous beliefs is an exception to the rule that only those who don't understand history attribute moral significance to historical events?
C wouldn't work, I thought, because if someone does understand history AND holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs, then it would not be unlikely for them to attribute moral significance to historical events.
Let me know!
Only took me 6.5 mins with at least 5 "wtf"s and 1 "idc" to get it right !!
Got it right but took me 3:46!!!
took me 2 days, but i got it. now working on getting it down to 1min30 sec which might take 2 weeks.
No way i can solve/answer this in 1min30sec.
I got this right but it took me 20 minutes 😵💫
so happy I got this right!!!
i got this right but it literally took me 5 minutes
I'm a bit confused on how to map these out on the actual test, do we have enough time to do it on scratch paper in a timed section? I do best on written paper exams to plot and map things out, but the LSAT isn't in that format right? :/
The first sentence was written diabolical. Had to reread it and contra to understand
I know a lot of history and I do see history as the working out of moral themes. Checkmate Historian
got it right but it definitely took me 9 minutes lol
mapping things out confuses me even more. Keeping track of things in my head works better for me, but it does take me a little longer to complete the question -_-
Just remember there should only be 1-2 PSA questions in each LR section.......right?!?!?!?!
Took me 12 minutes but I go it!
are all SA questions this hard because holy hell i swear we haven't had a single simple question in this entire module.
got it right, but it took me 4 extra min LOL
eazy breezy
once I drew out the logic in a map, it was easy to connect the missing premise