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 >:(
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.
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.
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)
#help Can someone explain the grammar in the conclusion of the stimulus? I got kinda tripped up where it says would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating — doesn't that refer to the past tense, of the ease/value of domestication back thousands of years ago? and if it does, then doesn't that kind of invalidate the attack on the analogy structure?
I was super confused by this because even if the wild species are easier to domesticate now, doesn't that have zero bearing on how easy they were / valuable it was to domesticate them back then?
The problem I have with NA vs SA is that I just can't seem to see how one is affecting the necessary part of the argument while one only affects the sufficient part of the argument. I get the whole "necessary assumption" prevents the argument from compeltely failing, but in this issue, how exactly is the addition of knowing that it is no easier to domesticate the animals a necessary assumption instead of a sufficient assumption.
damn it. The worst part of me choosing A, was that right after I read this, I was like "well we have different tech+skills today, wouldn't it be easier to domesticate them now"
I misread the argument when it went from talking about the past I immediately switched to the present. Which in turn made me rule out B because I did not recongize that they were analogous
4
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.
126 comments
JY.... analogy by time blew my mind.
i am not good at these at all
took me 10 minutes...but I got b
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.
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.
somebody please. what the fuck is the sufficient/necessary condition in the argument. i am so confused.
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.
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)
I really need to pay attention to the support structure!!!! ahhh--- the focus on time was obviously there
#help Can someone explain the grammar in the conclusion of the stimulus? I got kinda tripped up where it says would be difficult to domesticate or would not be worth domesticating — doesn't that refer to the past tense, of the ease/value of domestication back thousands of years ago? and if it does, then doesn't that kind of invalidate the attack on the analogy structure?
I was super confused by this because even if the wild species are easier to domesticate now, doesn't that have zero bearing on how easy they were / valuable it was to domesticate them back then?
I have gotten every single NA question wrong. #HELP
Damn, I second guessed myself. AHHHH! Why meeeeeeee
Got every NA question wrong so far, 140 here we come!
Bye I chose A
I think I genuinely didn't understand the stimulus for this one...
the last TWO modules have kicked my ass
NA questions are so difficult compared to other question types for some reason. Like, what is going on??
Like this comment if you misread the argument and chose A
The problem I have with NA vs SA is that I just can't seem to see how one is affecting the necessary part of the argument while one only affects the sufficient part of the argument. I get the whole "necessary assumption" prevents the argument from compeltely failing, but in this issue, how exactly is the addition of knowing that it is no easier to domesticate the animals a necessary assumption instead of a sufficient assumption.
damn it. The worst part of me choosing A, was that right after I read this, I was like "well we have different tech+skills today, wouldn't it be easier to domesticate them now"
AND I STILL DIDNT CHOOSE B SMHHHHHH
I misread the argument when it went from talking about the past I immediately switched to the present. Which in turn made me rule out B because I did not recongize that they were analogous