Even just the language of the wrong answers were a signal. POE helped alot here. The argument is that it was MISLEADING, no one cares what he "thought" or what "would" happen. That's what helped me here.
I keep getting these right but I actually have no idea how because I am thinking them through way less lol... I think overthinking these questions makes them wayyy harder
I was missing SO many of these SA and NA questions before I just started attempting to predict what the correct answer would say. Figuring out the missing link and then finding an answer that resembled my phrasing has worked for the last 7 questions (and the drilling portion). I haven't missed a question since (but now I'm jinxing myself)
These types of questions are really great opportunities for discovering what is best way for you as an individual to learn.
I've learned that using lawgic and writing it all out super confuses me and mostly leads me to the incorrect AC. However, when I think through the question in my mind and give myself time, (it took me 4-minutes to get this question) I nearly always get them correct.
Has anyone else noticed this about themselves? What kind of learning type is this?
Agreed. Basic lawgic is mostly good for clarifying potentially confusing/new concepts, I.e., necessity v. sufficiency, and/or learning the basics of logic/argument forms.
But, especially with the time constraints of the actual test, writing out the lawgic of every question would be very inefficient.
Me! I have noticed that I get caught up in lawgic and struggle to apply it back to the answers, but when I simply closely read the stimulus and each answer, it's usually enough for me to conceptualize what's going on and find the right answer. Not sure what kind of learning type this is....
This section is hurting my brain. The last question made only like 5% sense to me. This one, I was able to immediately know where the discrepancy was and hunted for the answer. wtf
Think of suff assum as making the conclusion in the stimulus 100% true with an answer choice. Meaning there are no loopholes in the conclusion when answered correctly.
For Nec Assum think of think of making it possible for the conclusion to be true with the correct answer choice. The answer choice makes it the conclusion possible.
I was between A, B, and E. I chose B the first time, then E for blind review. I almost always get the answer choice correct during blind review, but I can't help but still feel defeated. I watch the video explanation and understand JY's reasoning, but I"m still mad at myself for getting it wrong initially. Anyone else relate?
I feel like I just intuitively answered this question correctly, as opposed to understanding it under the notion of Necessary Assumptions. Could someone explain it again in those terms?
So, the chair of the AD said that J has her approval ONLY IF J includes all of the recommendation topics the chair of the AD reviewed. "Only if" is a necessary indicator, so in lawgic it would be
Chair AD Approval → J includes all the recs
/J includes all the recs → /Chair AD approval
However we know that James misled (gasp LIED TO) the committee and said he had the chair of the AD's approval. This is where we make an assumption. Its pretty to break absolutes like "all." Since we don't know if J included ALL of the recommendations, that could definitely be why he misled the committee.
I think Oliver's saying the same thing as the videos. By "find the rule that breaks it", I understood it as the negation tactic. One rule will connect or bridge the gap between premise and conclusion and that same rule negated will break the argument. By finding that one rule that will break it, you can also in a way work backward and find your answer choice that way.
I think my confusion here is how is the right answer suppose to interact with the diagram i create? Sufficient Assumption interacts with our diagram so how does necessary assumption do it differently?
@c00lbeans My way of doing it is to reverse the answer. So instead I mentally change the question stem to "which of the following, if false, invalidates the argument"
Because a necessary assumption is what completes the missing gap within the argument in a way that makes it valid, whereas a sufficient assumption increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true in the argument.
Like, for example
P: All vipers are stick shift
P: I love dodge vipers
C: I can drive a dodge viper
A necessary assumption would be "I know how to drive stick shift" Because if this is false, that means you cannot drive a viper and it fully kills the connection between the premise and conclusion
Whereas a sufficient assumption would be "I've driven a viper at top speed"
If true, this validates the argument, but if it's false, it doesn't necessarily kill the argument. Just because you've never driven it at top speed doesn't mean you can't drive it.
Also feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, typing these out is helping me try to understand the difference too.
I did this one a long time ago and got it right by chance without really understanding what the question was asking. I'm so glad I decided to go through this section, because understanding what the stimulus is actually asking is so important.
I keep getting these right based on intuition mostly, I don't like that though, I am not sure it's because I am getting better with LSAT in general that's why or what, but I cannot think of way to strategize these type of questions if that makes sense.
@MaramAtaee I am the exact same way because my intuition is quick with these but I could not tell you the reasoning behind why they are right and these lessons do not seem to help with that either.
64 comments
Even just the language of the wrong answers were a signal. POE helped alot here. The argument is that it was MISLEADING, no one cares what he "thought" or what "would" happen. That's what helped me here.
I keep getting these right but I actually have no idea how because I am thinking them through way less lol... I think overthinking these questions makes them wayyy harder
I agree- I was surprised the level of difficulty for this question as it felt like a level one. Anyone else understand why this is the case?
I think means your intuition is getting stronger, I'm noticing the same thing
That means you're getting better at them!
honestly all the answer choices just sounded too stupid and complicated which made E the only correct AC for me haha
I was missing SO many of these SA and NA questions before I just started attempting to predict what the correct answer would say. Figuring out the missing link and then finding an answer that resembled my phrasing has worked for the last 7 questions (and the drilling portion). I haven't missed a question since (but now I'm jinxing myself)
These types of questions are really great opportunities for discovering what is best way for you as an individual to learn.
I've learned that using lawgic and writing it all out super confuses me and mostly leads me to the incorrect AC. However, when I think through the question in my mind and give myself time, (it took me 4-minutes to get this question) I nearly always get them correct.
Has anyone else noticed this about themselves? What kind of learning type is this?
Same girl! Lawgic over confuses for me. I tend to do much better in my head. Now, just need to learn how to cut time like a lottt.
Agreed. Basic lawgic is mostly good for clarifying potentially confusing/new concepts, I.e., necessity v. sufficiency, and/or learning the basics of logic/argument forms.
But, especially with the time constraints of the actual test, writing out the lawgic of every question would be very inefficient.
Me! I have noticed that I get caught up in lawgic and struggle to apply it back to the answers, but when I simply closely read the stimulus and each answer, it's usually enough for me to conceptualize what's going on and find the right answer. Not sure what kind of learning type this is....
This section is hurting my brain. The last question made only like 5% sense to me. This one, I was able to immediately know where the discrepancy was and hunted for the answer. wtf
I don't understand necessary assumptions.
Is your name really Colin?
Think of suff assum as making the conclusion in the stimulus 100% true with an answer choice. Meaning there are no loopholes in the conclusion when answered correctly.
For Nec Assum think of think of making it possible for the conclusion to be true with the correct answer choice. The answer choice makes it the conclusion possible.
Example: Sam is a cat. Therefore, Sam is fluffy.
Sufficient Assum. Cats are fluffy
This makes the conclusion 100% true
Necessary Assum. Cats can be fluffy.
This makes the conclusion possible
no way - kingsway??
Yea?
7Sage clears Lsatlab
I dont understand how this is different from SA?? Anyone else concur? #feedback
I was between A, B, and E. I chose B the first time, then E for blind review. I almost always get the answer choice correct during blind review, but I can't help but still feel defeated. I watch the video explanation and understand JY's reasoning, but I"m still mad at myself for getting it wrong initially. Anyone else relate?
I feel like I just intuitively answered this question correctly, as opposed to understanding it under the notion of Necessary Assumptions. Could someone explain it again in those terms?
So, the chair of the AD said that J has her approval ONLY IF J includes all of the recommendation topics the chair of the AD reviewed. "Only if" is a necessary indicator, so in lawgic it would be
Chair AD Approval → J includes all the recs
/J includes all the recs → /Chair AD approval
However we know that James misled (gasp LIED TO) the committee and said he had the chair of the AD's approval. This is where we make an assumption. Its pretty to break absolutes like "all." Since we don't know if J included ALL of the recommendations, that could definitely be why he misled the committee.
@kx.kim44 omg this helped meee!!!!
This question really helped me understand how to answer this questions. I hope it sticks throughout the remainder of the questions going forward
PERIODD everything is starting to make sense
how do you blind review with the new 7sage?
I get all of the "you try" questions right then usually struggle with the drill questions at the end :/
Find the conclusion, find the rule that breaks it, ez
Can someone confirm Olivers method please?
I think Oliver's saying the same thing as the videos. By "find the rule that breaks it", I understood it as the negation tactic. One rule will connect or bridge the gap between premise and conclusion and that same rule negated will break the argument. By finding that one rule that will break it, you can also in a way work backward and find your answer choice that way.
i love it here
For those suffering from Necessary Assumption questions, here's another one for you:
Premise: Who cares what James thinks? ( JY doesn't)
Conclusion: James suffers from middle child syndrome.
What is the necessary assumption? :)
@catintheLSAT James is a middle child.
First question I’ve ever gotten correct in under target time. LETTSS GOOOOO!!
I'm confused when we negate the answer choice?
took 2 min but i got it right, wording was just convoluted af
I think my confusion here is how is the right answer suppose to interact with the diagram i create? Sufficient Assumption interacts with our diagram so how does necessary assumption do it differently?
@c00lbeans My way of doing it is to reverse the answer. So instead I mentally change the question stem to "which of the following, if false, invalidates the argument"
Because a necessary assumption is what completes the missing gap within the argument in a way that makes it valid, whereas a sufficient assumption increases the likelihood of the conclusion being true in the argument.
Like, for example
P: All vipers are stick shift
P: I love dodge vipers
C: I can drive a dodge viper
A necessary assumption would be "I know how to drive stick shift" Because if this is false, that means you cannot drive a viper and it fully kills the connection between the premise and conclusion
Whereas a sufficient assumption would be "I've driven a viper at top speed"
If true, this validates the argument, but if it's false, it doesn't necessarily kill the argument. Just because you've never driven it at top speed doesn't mean you can't drive it.
Also feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, typing these out is helping me try to understand the difference too.
I did this one a long time ago and got it right by chance without really understanding what the question was asking. I'm so glad I decided to go through this section, because understanding what the stimulus is actually asking is so important.
I keep getting these right based on intuition mostly, I don't like that though, I am not sure it's because I am getting better with LSAT in general that's why or what, but I cannot think of way to strategize these type of questions if that makes sense.
@MaramAtaee I am the exact same way because my intuition is quick with these but I could not tell you the reasoning behind why they are right and these lessons do not seem to help with that either.
What kind of reasoning is being used in the stimulus here?
conditional reasoning : committee will endorse only if james proposal included all the reccomendations
Oh ok! Hahaha. I forgot the only if when thinking about the kind of reasoning being used. Thank you for your reply. It is very appreciated! : )
HOW DO U KNOW whether to map or not? Bc the previous one u don’t map? HELP
I feel as though most of the time it is an intuition thing - depends on how many factors involved.
I AM CONFUSED ON THAT TOO maybe it could be conditions argument vs causal argument #help