i got e correct , but once i watched the video it is much more compelling that if we were to negate c that it would genuinely shatter the argument... i know that it doesn't go by the rulebook of structure etc etc but it is quite annoying that if you do the negate rule e is actually way weaker and c would make a ton more sense
I'm confused why E is correct. Yeah, they talk about the similarity of fins and wings, but don't we then have to assume that birds hunt their prey over long distances? I mean I guess they do, but I don't KNOW that.
I have another question: can I ascertain that for other NA questions that have an analogy, I can just focus on the analogy and picking an answer choice that relates to the analogy and "strengthens" it? Because I got this question wrong when i tried, but when I listened to the explanation I had a "Duh of course" moment
I remember in the beginning JY said one way to distinguish necessary assumption AC's is to negate the answer and see if the stim falls apart, but also that he doesn't recommend we ever use this in practice.........
So, for these questions, are we analyzing the argument and identifying what the author is taking to be true?? I don't want to say 'condition', but also there's no other way to describe it lol
I think I confused necessary vs sufficient...yet again. I thought the argument's weakest point was the missing connection between the premise and the conclusion and overlooked the analogy.
If Plesiosauromorph fins, like bird wings, were specialized for long-distance flight, that still doesn't strengthen the argument that Plesiosauromorphs were long-distance hunters..
But the argument first requires that the author's analogy make sense and consequently that their fins are specialized for long distance flight for the author to even argue that they hunted prey over long distance. That is what is necessary.
It is not sufficient, but necessary.
If I write it out, it becomes much clearer but it's like my brain hits a reset button and struggle when I see a new problem. lol
Can someone explain why he talks about the right answer choice as potentially "too strongly stated", why is that relevant to NA? Is it because typically very strongly stated claims are too strong to be necessary? I find it confusing because what does it matter if it's strong, if it's necessary it's necessary.
How can we be sure when an additional added premise is an analogy rather than just extra context intended to distract? I understand the logic present in providing data on birds in a stimulus on dinosaurs and "therefore that data must have some bearing on the dinosaurs."
But the fact that "most experts believe they lurked and quickly ambushed prey" is only relevant to the answer insomuch as it's negated by the author.
How can we quickly tell what info is "argument load-bearing" and what is "fluff" other than just intuition?
I am glad you officially told me not to say the name. Been doing this when reading books for years. I also like to make them more crude to help me memorize. So this would be a pissypants dinosaur.
My only fear is when I become a lawyer my clients see my notes and wonder why I have them listed as Mr. Ragu and not his official name: Raghunandan Venkateshwaran Harikrishna Sharma. Come on Ragu.. give me a break here. :)
I finally got one right!!! GUYS I'M SO EFFING SCARED RN
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!
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.
77 comments
i got e correct , but once i watched the video it is much more compelling that if we were to negate c that it would genuinely shatter the argument... i know that it doesn't go by the rulebook of structure etc etc but it is quite annoying that if you do the negate rule e is actually way weaker and c would make a ton more sense
C. Was wrong for me because it spoke about caloric requirements. We don’t care how many calories it needs to eat.
D. Said most marine animals but I thought it was wrong because what marine animals are we talking about?
A. Wrong because common ancestors? Where do we know that?
B. Cool but? If they were the only one who cares?
The negation rule is really saving my life. These necessary assumption questions are a breeze.
1st. Identify the conclusion and premise.
2nd. Go through the answer choices and find which one is necessary through the negation rule.
I do the negation rule in my head. This question only took me a minute to get it right.
So D follows logically from the conclusion?
Can NA questions have a general answer? Like with the Prince questions?
where can i review rule application reasoning? i think thats why both NA and SA questions are so hard for me.
I'm confused why E is correct. Yeah, they talk about the similarity of fins and wings, but don't we then have to assume that birds hunt their prey over long distances? I mean I guess they do, but I don't KNOW that.
I have another question: can I ascertain that for other NA questions that have an analogy, I can just focus on the analogy and picking an answer choice that relates to the analogy and "strengthens" it? Because I got this question wrong when i tried, but when I listened to the explanation I had a "Duh of course" moment
I remember in the beginning JY said one way to distinguish necessary assumption AC's is to negate the answer and see if the stim falls apart, but also that he doesn't recommend we ever use this in practice.........
is it concerning i use it all the time.
Yeah.. dont worry about the pronunciation... proceeds to pronounce it perfectly lolll
So, for these questions, are we analyzing the argument and identifying what the author is taking to be true?? I don't want to say 'condition', but also there's no other way to describe it lol
I think I confused necessary vs sufficient...yet again. I thought the argument's weakest point was the missing connection between the premise and the conclusion and overlooked the analogy.
If Plesiosauromorph fins, like bird wings, were specialized for long-distance flight, that still doesn't strengthen the argument that Plesiosauromorphs were long-distance hunters..
But the argument first requires that the author's analogy make sense and consequently that their fins are specialized for long distance flight for the author to even argue that they hunted prey over long distance. That is what is necessary.
It is not sufficient, but necessary.
If I write it out, it becomes much clearer but it's like my brain hits a reset button and struggle when I see a new problem. lol
Maybe i'm just being obtuse, but I feel like negating each answer choice to see if it breaks the argument takes too much time.
Would C be the right answer is this were an SA question?
wow this is SUCH a hard Q. I dont know how Id do this on my own - every answer (besides A) is hard to cross of
If it makes you guys feel better the real LSAT is like 25% NA questions in LR. It's awful lmao.
How do you guys take notes during these lessons?
Or do you more just watch & listen?
I have gotten one right. This is a freaking level 2, what the heck
WTF IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND SA???
Can someone explain why he talks about the right answer choice as potentially "too strongly stated", why is that relevant to NA? Is it because typically very strongly stated claims are too strong to be necessary? I find it confusing because what does it matter if it's strong, if it's necessary it's necessary.
How can we be sure when an additional added premise is an analogy rather than just extra context intended to distract? I understand the logic present in providing data on birds in a stimulus on dinosaurs and "therefore that data must have some bearing on the dinosaurs."
But the fact that "most experts believe they lurked and quickly ambushed prey" is only relevant to the answer insomuch as it's negated by the author.
How can we quickly tell what info is "argument load-bearing" and what is "fluff" other than just intuition?
I am glad you officially told me not to say the name. Been doing this when reading books for years. I also like to make them more crude to help me memorize. So this would be a pissypants dinosaur.
My only fear is when I become a lawyer my clients see my notes and wonder why I have them listed as Mr. Ragu and not his official name: Raghunandan Venkateshwaran Harikrishna Sharma. Come on Ragu.. give me a break here. :)
plesiosauromorphs looks like a drunken made up word
Jay: I'm not even going to bother trying to prnounce this dinosaur
first try
"Plesiosauromorphs"
I finally got one right!!! GUYS I'M SO EFFING SCARED RN