I picked E, and I was torn between A and E. Now I get it, but man I feel like I'm just not getting this stuff. My gut told me A at first, but as always went for the wrong answer
Ugh I got this wrong. I didn't really know what a subsidiary conclusion met and I only really focused on the main conclusion. This was very hard for my brain to break down.
I got this question right, but can someone explain to me why the first sentance is a premise instead of context? In the video explanation, I understand that it is being used as evidence to support the sub-conclusion, but I feel like it is tricky because the way I saw it was table-setting context. If someone could break it down further for me that would be great!
Funny thing about this question. I got it right on the first try for 3/5 difficulty and completely missed the 1/5 difficulty question. This happens often and it is killing my score.
I did find it odd that in the section testing what we’ve learned so far, we’re introduced to sub conclusions. It was surprising to see a correct answer choice involving a concept not yet covered.
I picked E because one I didn't know what a subsidiary conclusion was, but using context clues I picked E because I thought it was what A was saying and my mind thought A said what E had said, if that makes sense
Thanks for tossing us into the deep end with no precursor to what a "subsidiary conclusion" is. I get scaling and incroporating difficult questions, but this one seemed off-pace with other questions that get presented with the content that was just presented via the module. Just a critique on the flow of the curriculum.
i knew D was the conclusion but i always forget about sub conclusions. hope we go oveer them more cause i am def understanding the stuff better with 7 sage so far.
I see the structure as follows: (1) photographs of buckled ice -supports-> (2) warm sea (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (3) presence of life (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (4) there may be life on Europa (final conclusion).
There is a chain of premise/subsidiary conclusions leading to the final conclusion.
Yes both 2 & 3 support 4 as a chain not independently (as you illustrated).
However this would mean both D & E are correct.
The explanation states that 3 is a separate claim but then it contradicts itself by explaining that 3 without 2 would not support the conclusion as clearly.
I chose D, though A was the only one I didn't eliminate.
Something about the phrasing "indicates that" threw me off, making me think the sentence was a statement of fact, which made me think it was a premise. Maybe I misunderstand the definition of "indicate"?
But I guess even if that were the case, the statement "there is a warm sea" and "the presence of such a sea is ... a primary factor" are separate statements nonetheless that together support the overall conclusion. I did not differentiate these separate ideas.
So the reason the first sentence is a premice which supports the preliminary conclusion of the seccond sentence is that photos taken of the water, indicate the existence of the watter.
Wow I can't believe I'm getting the hang of this already. I would've had no idea what the question is asking if I saw it in the very beginning of the course
I saw the clock ticking in the corner and read too quickly, missing the main conclusion. I even missed it in Blind Review because I was sure I had read the stimulus correctly. SMH. Arrogance is the folly of the ego.
I got confused because I mistakenly rode off the first sentence as "context" and not as a possible premise for the sentence that followed. Any thoughts/advice on that? Can context serve as both context and a premise? After reviewing the video, I thought it made more sense esp given that I missed the words "indicates that.." which I should've known is a conclusion and had to be supported by another claim (1st sentence.)
I picked E because I thought the question was in regards to the first sentence, and when I realized that it was about the second sentence, palm to face emoji.
Feel like Daniel La Russo learning the wax on wax off method
9
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.
36 comments
I picked E, and I was torn between A and E. Now I get it, but man I feel like I'm just not getting this stuff. My gut told me A at first, but as always went for the wrong answer
Is consideration another word for premise? The second to last answer choice had this and was wondering.
Ugh I got this wrong. I didn't really know what a subsidiary conclusion met and I only really focused on the main conclusion. This was very hard for my brain to break down.
I got this question right, but can someone explain to me why the first sentance is a premise instead of context? In the video explanation, I understand that it is being used as evidence to support the sub-conclusion, but I feel like it is tricky because the way I saw it was table-setting context. If someone could break it down further for me that would be great!
Note:subsidiary conclusion means intermediate conclusion ( meaning its like a conclusion that leads to another conclusion.)
D is wrong because their was multiple considerations not just one.....
Funny thing about this question. I got it right on the first try for 3/5 difficulty and completely missed the 1/5 difficulty question. This happens often and it is killing my score.
I did find it odd that in the section testing what we’ve learned so far, we’re introduced to sub conclusions. It was surprising to see a correct answer choice involving a concept not yet covered.
I picked E because one I didn't know what a subsidiary conclusion was, but using context clues I picked E because I thought it was what A was saying and my mind thought A said what E had said, if that makes sense
Thanks for tossing us into the deep end with no precursor to what a "subsidiary conclusion" is. I get scaling and incroporating difficult questions, but this one seemed off-pace with other questions that get presented with the content that was just presented via the module. Just a critique on the flow of the curriculum.
GUYS ITS WORKING IM GETTING THESE RIGHT
i knew D was the conclusion but i always forget about sub conclusions. hope we go oveer them more cause i am def understanding the stuff better with 7 sage so far.
The big language in these questions always scares me; can't wait to get to the lessons that break it down!
I see the structure as follows: (1) photographs of buckled ice -supports-> (2) warm sea (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (3) presence of life (intermediate conclusion/premise) -supports-> (4) there may be life on Europa (final conclusion).
There is a chain of premise/subsidiary conclusions leading to the final conclusion.
Yes both 2 & 3 support 4 as a chain not independently (as you illustrated).
However this would mean both D & E are correct.
The explanation states that 3 is a separate claim but then it contradicts itself by explaining that 3 without 2 would not support the conclusion as clearly.
I chose D, though A was the only one I didn't eliminate.
Something about the phrasing "indicates that" threw me off, making me think the sentence was a statement of fact, which made me think it was a premise. Maybe I misunderstand the definition of "indicate"?
But I guess even if that were the case, the statement "there is a warm sea" and "the presence of such a sea is ... a primary factor" are separate statements nonetheless that together support the overall conclusion. I did not differentiate these separate ideas.
Would answer choice D be more correct if the final sentence said "The presence of that sea is thought..."?
Am I getting this right?
So the reason the first sentence is a premice which supports the preliminary conclusion of the seccond sentence is that photos taken of the water, indicate the existence of the watter.
Wow I can't believe I'm getting the hang of this already. I would've had no idea what the question is asking if I saw it in the very beginning of the course
Is "subsidiary conclusion" the same as saying "premise" for the main conclusion?
I saw the clock ticking in the corner and read too quickly, missing the main conclusion. I even missed it in Blind Review because I was sure I had read the stimulus correctly. SMH. Arrogance is the folly of the ego.
I got confused because I mistakenly rode off the first sentence as "context" and not as a possible premise for the sentence that followed. Any thoughts/advice on that? Can context serve as both context and a premise? After reviewing the video, I thought it made more sense esp given that I missed the words "indicates that.." which I should've known is a conclusion and had to be supported by another claim (1st sentence.)
I picked E because I thought the question was in regards to the first sentence, and when I realized that it was about the second sentence, palm to face emoji.
Feel like Daniel La Russo learning the wax on wax off method