A dreadfull and pedantic question. Been sitting here for 45 minutes and still dont understand the logic. Solution is vastly unsatisfying. 0/10. Moving on.
Heres how I understand A to be wrong even though I picked it:
A wrong because the premises jump from people in the past to people today. The jump and the continuity in B is the assumption that the argument requires. If its not easier for people today than it was thousands of years ago to domesticate then it explains why the conclusion is that undomesitcated animals are either difficult or not worth it.
A sounds really good and is super helpful for the argument but if it werent true it wouldnt change anything the argument is saying
I feel incredibly stumped not because I got the answer wrong, because I am simply not able to learn from my mistakes. My only takeaway from learning what the correct answer is that the video's interpretation of the stimulus is so far from what I assumed. Why would "Since those days" ever mean that its in the past. "Since those days", inclusive of every day from thousands of years ago, to today. So from that thinking don't understand why B would need to be necessary? This isn't grammar, this isn't confusing necessary and sufficient - it seems to me that it is simply a matter of interpretation.
@CMas Even though he suggested against this because of time constraints, what helps me is finding the answer I believe is correct then negating it. This allows me to see if that AC would destroy the argument or not. If negated answer makes the argument fall apart, chances are its the right answer.
This def isn't full proof but I've found success when I took the time to do that. Once you get a grasp of that, then you can watch videos (Kevin Li's are great) that help you understand the patterns of these questions so it can help your speed.
Good luck! Im not sure if this will work but this is what I'm doing because I'm also struggling with this question type. Practice, practice, practice!!!!
@AlvinB I thought of it like this: If domesticating animals is much easier today, then many species that were "too hard" before might be domesticated now, weakening the conclusion that "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating." For NA questions if you negate an answer choice and it destroys the argument, that is the necessary assumption. If domesticating animals are easier today, then it cannot be true that most wild large mammal species today would be difficult to domesticate.
Isn't it also a necessary assumption that people (in either time) are correctly able to identify what it means to be worthy of domestication? I'm confused because this point doesn't seem to be addressed by the argument or any of the answers.
I would argue that the stimulus would be logical argument if the conclusion said “is too difficult…or not worth domesticating” but the fact it says “either would…or would not” implies indefinitely into the future which is not certain unless difficulty is constant indefinitely . Answer B is still bad in my opinion, because it says nothing about the future. The fact that the stimulus already says “since those days” covers from past up until present. In addition, “innumerable times” strongly implies often and frequently. Answer B, if right, further requires the assumption that the future difficulty can be predicted based on the block of time between past and present. HMMMM??!? I guess it’s reasonable assumption. BUT y’all mean >:(
@SoniaKulkarni negation of A is: In spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have not tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species.
Premise talks about each of the wild large mammal species that "seemed worth domesticating".
The negation of A doesn't contradict with the premise.
I found it really helpful to use the Loophole book to understand suficient/necessay ssumptions. This section has undoubtly been my worse performing. The book broke it down better in my opinion.
@Alexxreyeess Thank you for saying this! I have the book and will make sure to check out those sections, specifically. I agree that these particular sections have been difficult in this program.
@Nickgigs Try this analogy: Premise: I play basketball. Conclusion: Therefore, I am one of the best basketball players in the world. Sufficient assumptions powerfully improve the argument, e.g., I've won 5 NBA championships. In contrast, necessary assumptions may not improve the argument by much, but they are required, e.g., I know how to dribble a basketball.
Try this: Premise: I want to go to law school. Conclusion: I will get a 180 on the LSAT to improve my chances of being accepted.
Necessary assumption: I have to pay the LSAC $248 (If I say, I can't pay the LSAC $248, there is zero chance that I can get a 180 because I cannot sit for the exam that is the negation that completely shatters the argument) so it is necessary.
Sufficient assumption: In my pursuit to go to law school, I have taken over 10,000 LSAT questions, attended multiple prep courses, and consistently score 180's on my practice exams (I am not implying this is me. My practice exams suck, but I am working on it). This strengthens the argument that I have a better chance I am getting a 180. But this is not necessary because technically, I can never do a course and never see a single LSAT question and still score a 180 (unlikely, but not impossible).
Be careful on these questions. The correct answer must connect the premise to the conclusion. As you can see, I connected going to law school to a high score to give myself a better chance of getting into a law school. It's the same for the necessary clause. It has to connect the premise to the conclusion. I want to go to law school. Hence, I have to take the LSAT. So, I have to pay LSAC $248. It connects the premise to the conclusion.
If the necessary assumption is negated, the argument completely shatters.
One reason (C) can be appealing beyond the reasoning given is that it resembles an NA. If (C) said “all of the large mammal species that exist today existed in the past,” that would be an NA — because the argument breaks down if there is a disjunction between the species of today and the species of yester-year (this would disturb the analogy). But that’s not what (C) actually says.
maybe im missing something here but B doesnt seem necessary to the argument.
even if it is easier today to domesticate animals, that shouldnt mean that it isnt still difficult to do so today. it makes it less relevant to the past but not enough to destroy the argument.
maybe my standard of necessity is too high? I thought it was an assumption without which the argument cannot follow.
@Charles_ No I think you are generally correct in your understanding of NA's but I think you just missed the underlying implication. Let me explain: If something was difficult but is now much easier, then there is a strong implication that it is no longer difficult, place that understanding in the context of the question and the portion of the conclusion that every species would be difficult to domesticate is undermined.
@Charles_ I thought of it this way: If it is easier to domesticate wild species today, then why haven't we done it? If it's ONLY that these species are "not worth domesticating" then that only fulfills half of the conclusion
P1: Every domesticated large mammal species we have today was domesticated thousands of years ago
P2: Since then, people have tried thousands of times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating
Conclusion: most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating
I was really confused about what the stimulus was even saying. The conclusion is that the large mammal species that remain wild today (aka were not domesticated) would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating. In other words, today's large wild mammal species remain wild either because our ancestors didn't think they were worth domesticating and therefore didn't try, or because our ancestors tried to domesticate them but failed (because they were difficult to domesticate). Because it is an argument by analogy between the past and present, the past and present conditions can't be radically different in regards to domestication, or else the conclusion wouldn't hold. Negating answer choice B) would provide such a flaw and so we know it's a necessary assumption. (If species are much easier to domesticate now, then the reason they remain wild can't be because they're difficult to domesticate)
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.
145 comments
yeah this one wrecked me
A dreadfull and pedantic question. Been sitting here for 45 minutes and still dont understand the logic. Solution is vastly unsatisfying. 0/10. Moving on.
Man I read b in correctly totally missed the not :(
Prediction it must have gotten harder lol but then I was like guess they didn’t supply an answer choice like that.
Not recognizing the modifier of "that seemed worth domesticating" is what made me choose A off rip instead of B.
Half of these answer choices felt necessary to the argument...
@MRod completely agree
i have gotten every single one in this section wrong. it is not clicking
Heres how I understand A to be wrong even though I picked it:
A wrong because the premises jump from people in the past to people today. The jump and the continuity in B is the assumption that the argument requires. If its not easier for people today than it was thousands of years ago to domesticate then it explains why the conclusion is that undomesitcated animals are either difficult or not worth it.
A sounds really good and is super helpful for the argument but if it werent true it wouldnt change anything the argument is saying
I keep getting them right in the BR and I'll take it tbh
@ggasca21 Best way to learn. Eventually it'll click during your actual attempt :)
I feel incredibly stumped not because I got the answer wrong, because I am simply not able to learn from my mistakes. My only takeaway from learning what the correct answer is that the video's interpretation of the stimulus is so far from what I assumed. Why would "Since those days" ever mean that its in the past. "Since those days", inclusive of every day from thousands of years ago, to today. So from that thinking don't understand why B would need to be necessary? This isn't grammar, this isn't confusing necessary and sufficient - it seems to me that it is simply a matter of interpretation.
@EvangelaGabeau I feel like we have too many practice questions and for a lot of them the answers reasons are made up
There has to be a better strategy than just looking at the stimulus/conclusion and asking yourself "what's necessary."
It would be increadibly more helpful if we had a stategy that wasn't just asking ourselves what the question is asking.
@CMas Even though he suggested against this because of time constraints, what helps me is finding the answer I believe is correct then negating it. This allows me to see if that AC would destroy the argument or not. If negated answer makes the argument fall apart, chances are its the right answer.
This def isn't full proof but I've found success when I took the time to do that. Once you get a grasp of that, then you can watch videos (Kevin Li's are great) that help you understand the patterns of these questions so it can help your speed.
Good luck! Im not sure if this will work but this is what I'm doing because I'm also struggling with this question type. Practice, practice, practice!!!!
I actually suck at these, but I somehow got the last two questions right just because I turned off my brain?! Idek how to explain it.
@Nicoled Right I feel like I don't understand because I don't know how I got it right or exactly how the other questions are that wrong.
Someone please explain to me why B works.
@AlvinB I thought of it like this: If domesticating animals is much easier today, then many species that were "too hard" before might be domesticated now, weakening the conclusion that "most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating." For NA questions if you negate an answer choice and it destroys the argument, that is the necessary assumption. If domesticating animals are easier today, then it cannot be true that most wild large mammal species today would be difficult to domesticate.
Isn't it also a necessary assumption that people (in either time) are correctly able to identify what it means to be worthy of domestication? I'm confused because this point doesn't seem to be addressed by the argument or any of the answers.
JY.... analogy by time blew my mind.
i am not good at these at all
took me 10 minutes...but I got b
@emmalemon the way I related so hard
I would argue that the stimulus would be logical argument if the conclusion said “is too difficult…or not worth domesticating” but the fact it says “either would…or would not” implies indefinitely into the future which is not certain unless difficulty is constant indefinitely . Answer B is still bad in my opinion, because it says nothing about the future. The fact that the stimulus already says “since those days” covers from past up until present. In addition, “innumerable times” strongly implies often and frequently. Answer B, if right, further requires the assumption that the future difficulty can be predicted based on the block of time between past and present. HMMMM??!? I guess it’s reasonable assumption. BUT y’all mean >:(
Why not A? I negated A and didn't think the argument could work... not sure.
@SoniaKulkarni negation of A is: In spite of the difficulties encountered, at one time or another people have not tried to domesticate each wild large mammal species.
Premise talks about each of the wild large mammal species that "seemed worth domesticating".
The negation of A doesn't contradict with the premise.
Negated the answer choice and I got it thank the lawd!
I found it really helpful to use the Loophole book to understand suficient/necessay ssumptions. This section has undoubtly been my worse performing. The book broke it down better in my opinion.
@Alexxreyeess Thank you for saying this! I have the book and will make sure to check out those sections, specifically. I agree that these particular sections have been difficult in this program.
somebody please. what the fuck is the sufficient/necessary condition in the argument. i am so confused.
@Nickgigs Try this analogy: Premise: I play basketball. Conclusion: Therefore, I am one of the best basketball players in the world. Sufficient assumptions powerfully improve the argument, e.g., I've won 5 NBA championships. In contrast, necessary assumptions may not improve the argument by much, but they are required, e.g., I know how to dribble a basketball.
Try this: Premise: I want to go to law school. Conclusion: I will get a 180 on the LSAT to improve my chances of being accepted.
Necessary assumption: I have to pay the LSAC $248 (If I say, I can't pay the LSAC $248, there is zero chance that I can get a 180 because I cannot sit for the exam that is the negation that completely shatters the argument) so it is necessary.
Sufficient assumption: In my pursuit to go to law school, I have taken over 10,000 LSAT questions, attended multiple prep courses, and consistently score 180's on my practice exams (I am not implying this is me. My practice exams suck, but I am working on it). This strengthens the argument that I have a better chance I am getting a 180. But this is not necessary because technically, I can never do a course and never see a single LSAT question and still score a 180 (unlikely, but not impossible).
Be careful on these questions. The correct answer must connect the premise to the conclusion. As you can see, I connected going to law school to a high score to give myself a better chance of getting into a law school. It's the same for the necessary clause. It has to connect the premise to the conclusion. I want to go to law school. Hence, I have to take the LSAT. So, I have to pay LSAC $248. It connects the premise to the conclusion.
If the necessary assumption is negated, the argument completely shatters.
I hope this helps.
bro my test is next week and this entire section makes me feel like im not ready for it at all
One reason (C) can be appealing beyond the reasoning given is that it resembles an NA. If (C) said “all of the large mammal species that exist today existed in the past,” that would be an NA — because the argument breaks down if there is a disjunction between the species of today and the species of yester-year (this would disturb the analogy). But that’s not what (C) actually says.
maybe im missing something here but B doesnt seem necessary to the argument.
even if it is easier today to domesticate animals, that shouldnt mean that it isnt still difficult to do so today. it makes it less relevant to the past but not enough to destroy the argument.
maybe my standard of necessity is too high? I thought it was an assumption without which the argument cannot follow.
@Charles_ No I think you are generally correct in your understanding of NA's but I think you just missed the underlying implication. Let me explain: If something was difficult but is now much easier, then there is a strong implication that it is no longer difficult, place that understanding in the context of the question and the portion of the conclusion that every species would be difficult to domesticate is undermined.
@Charles_ I thought of it this way: If it is easier to domesticate wild species today, then why haven't we done it? If it's ONLY that these species are "not worth domesticating" then that only fulfills half of the conclusion
P1: Every domesticated large mammal species we have today was domesticated thousands of years ago
P2: Since then, people have tried thousands of times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating
Conclusion: most wild large mammal species in existence today either would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating
I was really confused about what the stimulus was even saying. The conclusion is that the large mammal species that remain wild today (aka were not domesticated) would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating. In other words, today's large wild mammal species remain wild either because our ancestors didn't think they were worth domesticating and therefore didn't try, or because our ancestors tried to domesticate them but failed (because they were difficult to domesticate). Because it is an argument by analogy between the past and present, the past and present conditions can't be radically different in regards to domestication, or else the conclusion wouldn't hold. Negating answer choice B) would provide such a flaw and so we know it's a necessary assumption. (If species are much easier to domesticate now, then the reason they remain wild can't be because they're difficult to domesticate)
@AudreyGilmour Thank you!! This helped connect the dots for me