the "rely exclusively on scientifically valid information." is why i didn't choose b .. i literally was like thats so strong, that doesn't have to be true .. there are other valid forms of info that would do them well. Can someone explain ?
why the hell would they include a level 5 question in such early stages? it is better to start with something that is easy comprehensable for this stage!!!!.
somebody, please, for the love of god explain the difference between b and e for me. i understand E is the sufficient-necessary confusion thingy BUT I DO NOT GET HOW AT ALL PLZ HELP ME
So I see a clear gap between people who browse the web for medical information and those who have no medical background. is bridging then another necessary assumption? And if so, does that mean there are two necessary assumption needed for the argument to work?
obviously that bridge wasn't in the answer choices, but will there ever be multiple necessary assumptions? if so how do we choose one over the other?
I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.
I have a question about why AC B is both necessary and sufficient. It seems really strong, in that if someone was using 99% scientific info and 1% quackery, that would be likely doing more harm than good. But is it necessary because the argument itself is making a really strong claim, which requires a really strong necessary condition? Is that why an AC is both necessary and sufficient, because the argument requires such a leap such that the sufficient condition is often the necessary one?
Tutor Response
As you've probably noticed, for a good number of NA questions, the answer would be exactly the same if the question stem were asking for an SA. Rather than thinking of these as questions where the argument is making a particularly strong claim, I would think of them as arguments that are almost valid. These are arguments that are missing just one assumption—if there were just one more premise, then they would be valid. In that case, the sufficient assumption and the necessary assumption are the same: just one more assumption would be sufficient to make the argument valid, and that same assumption is also necessary.
In terms of this particular question, let's test out (B) using the Negation Test:
"People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information."
This gets us: "/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> /likely to do more harm than good."
The stimulus had given us this argument:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
So the negation of (B) would break the argument entirely! It would make it impossible to form a bridge between the condition we know to be true (people don't typically rely exclusively on scientifically valid info) and the condition we're trying to conclude is true (using the web to self-diagnose is likely to do more harm than good). That's why (B) is a necessary assumption.
It's also a sufficient assumption, because it happens to close the only gap in the argument! It gives us:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> likely to do more harm than good
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
In a relatively simple argument structure with just one major gap, NA questions often look exactly like PSA or SA questions. But we don't lump them in with PSA or SA completely, because most NA questions don't actually get us all the way to a valid argument. It's good practice to recognize when they do, though!
i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?
I'm getting these right but I still don't have a good mental framework. there's usually a guiding sentence or rule that I'll say in my head as I approach questions but I can't figure one out for NA - anyone have something simple they use? #help
I was pretty stuck on trying to understand why A was wrong but it makes more sense now and will try to explain to those who may be confused. Basically, because A has the same set as one of the premises instead of the conclusion (people who browse the web), the Ac is saying that of those people who browse, MOST of them browse specifically to self-diagnose. Now this is attractive because of the ignorance toward the incorrect set being talked about here. The number of people that browse specifically to self-diagnose is completely irrelevant to the gap of discrimination and harm. The quantity, even if it is most of the people that browse, is irrelevant to whether people will do more harm than good. Even if it was not most, that does not takeway from the fact that people can still do more harm than good to themselves by relying on the quackery.
#help I still don't understand how to identify the second sentence as evidence and not fact/phenomenon. Couldn't it be the inverse? Or couldn't both sentences be facts?
As long as the LSAT writers use subtle differences in language to make me
incorrectly assume that "those looking online for medical info" and "those looking online to self-diagnose their own medical condition" are the same people I will hate them with all my heart lmao.
My pick, A, was a bad call though. The correct NA answer will rarely have a proportion/probability word like "most".
I knew E was wrong but I picked it because everything else was word salad and my brain stopped working.
7
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.
124 comments
Can someone simplify why this is necessary. I feel as though the explanation isn't simplifying this enough.
I really fell for A and feel like I would choose that answer choice again still even after explanation :/
man i gotta read better
God is good. 3 correct in a row
the "rely exclusively on scientifically valid information." is why i didn't choose b .. i literally was like thats so strong, that doesn't have to be true .. there are other valid forms of info that would do them well. Can someone explain ?
how do they justify jumping from a level 2 to a level 5 question so early on /: they really know how to break my fleeting confidence
why the hell would they include a level 5 question in such early stages? it is better to start with something that is easy comprehensable for this stage!!!!.
I didn't take my Concerta today so this question is really breaking my brain
somebody, please, for the love of god explain the difference between b and e for me. i understand E is the sufficient-necessary confusion thingy BUT I DO NOT GET HOW AT ALL PLZ HELP ME
20 MINUTES LATER AND I GOT IT RIGHT FIRST TRY (let me have this please i am awful at this section)
So I see a clear gap between people who browse the web for medical information and those who have no medical background. is bridging then another necessary assumption? And if so, does that mean there are two necessary assumption needed for the argument to work?
obviously that bridge wasn't in the answer choices, but will there ever be multiple necessary assumptions? if so how do we choose one over the other?
#help
I still don't understand the difference between NA and SA so far. It feels like all of the questions so far have been ones where the right answer could be both. I would have went with B, but I assumed that it seemed like "too good" of an answer choice for the question, making it a SA. I thought one of the main things we we're told was that incorrect AC's for NA questions will bait us into making SA's (especially since this comes right after the SA curriculum part), so I was looking for something that it seemed that the stimulus overlooked as a key part of the conclusion and went with AC A. I understand how A could be wrong since people browsing in general is the superset, but I'm still confused on the difference between SA and NA questions so far, hopefully it will make more sense down the line.
Student Question
I have a question about why AC B is both necessary and sufficient. It seems really strong, in that if someone was using 99% scientific info and 1% quackery, that would be likely doing more harm than good. But is it necessary because the argument itself is making a really strong claim, which requires a really strong necessary condition? Is that why an AC is both necessary and sufficient, because the argument requires such a leap such that the sufficient condition is often the necessary one?
Tutor Response
As you've probably noticed, for a good number of NA questions, the answer would be exactly the same if the question stem were asking for an SA. Rather than thinking of these as questions where the argument is making a particularly strong claim, I would think of them as arguments that are almost valid. These are arguments that are missing just one assumption—if there were just one more premise, then they would be valid. In that case, the sufficient assumption and the necessary assumption are the same: just one more assumption would be sufficient to make the argument valid, and that same assumption is also necessary.
In terms of this particular question, let's test out (B) using the Negation Test:
"People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are NOT likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information."
This gets us: "/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> /likely to do more harm than good."
The stimulus had given us this argument:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
So the negation of (B) would break the argument entirely! It would make it impossible to form a bridge between the condition we know to be true (people don't typically rely exclusively on scientifically valid info) and the condition we're trying to conclude is true (using the web to self-diagnose is likely to do more harm than good). That's why (B) is a necessary assumption.
It's also a sufficient assumption, because it happens to close the only gap in the argument! It gives us:
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info -> likely to do more harm than good
/rely exclusively on scientifically valid info
__________
likely to do more harm than good
In a relatively simple argument structure with just one major gap, NA questions often look exactly like PSA or SA questions. But we don't lump them in with PSA or SA completely, because most NA questions don't actually get us all the way to a valid argument. It's good practice to recognize when they do, though!
i ruled B out immediately when I read "exclusively" :( Does the argument really insist on absolutely 0 quackery? not even a little? you will do yourself more harm than good if you diagnose your medical condition by relying on 95% scientific papers and 5% quackery?
Holy crap. I got this right by using the negation test! It works!
I'm getting these right but I still don't have a good mental framework. there's usually a guiding sentence or rule that I'll say in my head as I approach questions but I can't figure one out for NA - anyone have something simple they use? #help
I was pretty stuck on trying to understand why A was wrong but it makes more sense now and will try to explain to those who may be confused. Basically, because A has the same set as one of the premises instead of the conclusion (people who browse the web), the Ac is saying that of those people who browse, MOST of them browse specifically to self-diagnose. Now this is attractive because of the ignorance toward the incorrect set being talked about here. The number of people that browse specifically to self-diagnose is completely irrelevant to the gap of discrimination and harm. The quantity, even if it is most of the people that browse, is irrelevant to whether people will do more harm than good. Even if it was not most, that does not takeway from the fact that people can still do more harm than good to themselves by relying on the quackery.
Ugh! NA is much harder than SA. I get the what I need to do for NA but I still end up choosing wrong A/Cs.
#help I still don't understand how to identify the second sentence as evidence and not fact/phenomenon. Couldn't it be the inverse? Or couldn't both sentences be facts?
I’m so proud of myself for getting this right after being absolutely demolished by the SA section
I was stuck between A and B grrrrrr ... I am an idiot sandwich
As long as the LSAT writers use subtle differences in language to make me
incorrectly assume that "those looking online for medical info" and "those looking online to self-diagnose their own medical condition" are the same people I will hate them with all my heart lmao.
My pick, A, was a bad call though. The correct NA answer will rarely have a proportion/probability word like "most".
I don't know how I'm just getting these questions right intuitively. When I try to rationalize them they become more confusing.
what the helly
I knew E was wrong but I picked it because everything else was word salad and my brain stopped working.