the only reason I got this question right is because literally none of the answers made sense, and C grammatically made no sense to me so I figured it had to be right... smh
yeah except this is cap. half of these questions play on exactly that assumption and you end up picking an answer that supports the conclusion because that's what we've been so dialed in on in LR instead of the ARGUMENT
Not sure how you not being able to do it makes it cap, you don’t have to follow my advice. I didn’t have any problems with it. I think you’re just overthinking it. It’s in my opinion the best keep-it-simple-stupid strategy and will work easily on 90% of NA problems you see in under a minute, even complex level 5’s with many moving parts you walk away with a very confident answer every time. Which for the LSAT, is a feeling and success rate I’ll take happily. Just saying what works for me.
I suck at NA! I have been getting every question wrong so far and I literally did this for this question and got it right! I'm going to keep testing this to see how I do.
- it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals'... this is not the case.. Remember, this is the author's ultimate grand point and one of the option's is required for it to be possible. So essentially, what we do now is assume that instead of the answer choices being all true, we assume that they're false and ask our selves in the reality where our answer choice has been inverted if the conclusion is still reachable. If our conclusion is no longer reachable we have found the NECESSARY assumption that the author is making for their conclusion to be possible when it is not inverted.
2. Negate until this is not possible
A) If we assume they did not live at the same time or place as human's, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, our conclusion can still be be possible, it arguably bolsters the conclusion that they did not breed.
B) If we assume DNA testing of remains is not less reliable than testing living people. Does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, it again boosts the chances that the conclusion is true.
C) If we assume that DNA of our ancestors WAS more similar to Neanderthal's than ours, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? YES. If their DNA is somehow more similar to each other than us, their direct descendants, it must have been the case that they bred.
Essentially, by assuming one of the answers as the opposite, we learned what assumption was absolutely necessary for our conclusion to remain true. This is very fast in practice the more you train it. It does rely on being able to consistently get the conclusion correct.
@spencerrobertsmithtn358 C) says "The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans."
The above statement is saying that the difference between the DNA of our ancestors and the DNA of Neanderthals was not significantly smaller than the difference between our DNA and the DNA of Neaderthals. The groups being compared are ancient homo sapiens and Neanderthals, on the one hand, and modern homo sapiens and Neaderthals, on the other hand.
If we negate answer choice C), then that means the difference or 'gap' between our ancestor's DNA and that of Neanderthals is smaller than the gap between our DNA and that of Neanderthals. It does not mean that our ancestor's DNA is more similar to that of Neanderthals than it is to ours.
The grammar parsing was super hard. I only understand the comparative claim after reading/watching the video.
But now I understand that: if [the DNA of prehistoric Homo Sapien ancestors was NOT significantly more similar to Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans], it would mean that the fact premise [the DNA of contemporary humans being significantly different than that of the Neanderthal] would not necessarily support the conclusion that they didn't interbreed. That fact could be the result of genetic change over time after interbreeding.
I agree. This seems to be a case of LSAC wording a question in an intentionally confusing way. I misread "not more similar" as "no less similar", meaning that the DNA would have equal similarities to Neanderthals as to humans. But by being "not more similar", that means that there must be an equal OR GREATER amount of similarities between early and modern human DNA than early humans and Neanderthals.
Very sometimes, JY's explanation relies on us being on the same level as him and feels like the explanation is inadequate. But I personally don't think this video is one of those. For one, answer choices other than C are so irrelvant that I think C would be a good contender by indirect proof. But JY explaining the distinction between Ancester Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Modern humans sufficiently explain the gap in the argument.
The stimulus implies that there is a DNA discrepency between Ancester HS and Neanderthals but YET uses as evidence the discrepency between MODERN HS and Neanderthals. Therefore, we need a necessary condition that ties this gap. Just by knowing this (and this is what JY explained), C is right. But JY even went beyond and explained the logic behind C; C
was pretty much saying that the Ancester HS was different from Neanderthal as much as modern HS was different from Neanderthal. This ties the gap. Hopefully this helped.
If you negate the CA choice, the argument falls apart. If it were the case that the DNA of our ancestors, prehistoric homo sapiens, were more similar to that of Neanderthals than our DNA today, then that would render the argument destroyed. The stimulus is saying that when they compared Neanderthal DNA to ours (humans today), they found significant differences, but we are left to assume that would be the case if they also examined the DNA of our ancestors.
I should win an award for narrowing it down to the two most popular answers every time. I got this one correct because I looked at E, accepted it as true then asked what did it do for the argument? It still leaves unanswered problems such as the correct answer C
My intuition is finally starting to pick these up... TO put into perspective I had no idea what I was doing only two weeks ago. Do not give up, your brain will catch up
I think I'm just gonna take the L on this one. Genuinely have no clue how to decipher C. This is the most confusing grammar I've ever seen on a test question
171 comments
Reading C was like trying to read a foreign language. I haven't seen a bigger fuck you answer choice before.
Answer choice C was harder to understand than the stimulus
I’ve gotten every single one of these wrong 🤩
This was me with the SA questions! Keep trying, don't be discouraged.
the only reason I got this question right is because literally none of the answers made sense, and C grammatically made no sense to me so I figured it had to be right... smh
Am i sure I want to do law?
I FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT YIPPEE
im dying here.
ain't nobody reading C i just skipped that shit 😂
LMFAOOOO
Bruh I always narrow the answer choices to the correct answer and the most popular incorrect answer
i girlbossed gaslit gatekept this question
Tung tung tung sahur
this question makes me want to cry
1. Determine conclusion
2. Negate an answer choice till it makes the conclusion impossible.
This is the best method for consistently correct answer choices fast.
yeah except this is cap. half of these questions play on exactly that assumption and you end up picking an answer that supports the conclusion because that's what we've been so dialed in on in LR instead of the ARGUMENT
Not sure how you not being able to do it makes it cap, you don’t have to follow my advice. I didn’t have any problems with it. I think you’re just overthinking it. It’s in my opinion the best keep-it-simple-stupid strategy and will work easily on 90% of NA problems you see in under a minute, even complex level 5’s with many moving parts you walk away with a very confident answer every time. Which for the LSAT, is a feeling and success rate I’ll take happily. Just saying what works for me.
I suck at NA! I have been getting every question wrong so far and I literally did this for this question and got it right! I'm going to keep testing this to see how I do.
do you think you can explain how you negated the correct answer choice to determine it was right? would really appreciate it
@CXH1120
Yes, here is my train of thought:
1. Search for conclusion
- it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals'... this is not the case.. Remember, this is the author's ultimate grand point and one of the option's is required for it to be possible. So essentially, what we do now is assume that instead of the answer choices being all true, we assume that they're false and ask our selves in the reality where our answer choice has been inverted if the conclusion is still reachable. If our conclusion is no longer reachable we have found the NECESSARY assumption that the author is making for their conclusion to be possible when it is not inverted.
2. Negate until this is not possible
A) If we assume they did not live at the same time or place as human's, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, our conclusion can still be be possible, it arguably bolsters the conclusion that they did not breed.
B) If we assume DNA testing of remains is not less reliable than testing living people. Does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? No, it again boosts the chances that the conclusion is true.
C) If we assume that DNA of our ancestors WAS more similar to Neanderthal's than ours, does that make our conclusion that they did not breed impossible? YES. If their DNA is somehow more similar to each other than us, their direct descendants, it must have been the case that they bred.
Essentially, by assuming one of the answers as the opposite, we learned what assumption was absolutely necessary for our conclusion to remain true. This is very fast in practice the more you train it. It does rely on being able to consistently get the conclusion correct.
thank you that was very helpful
@spencerrobertsmithtn358 C) says "The DNA of prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans."
The above statement is saying that the difference between the DNA of our ancestors and the DNA of Neanderthals was not significantly smaller than the difference between our DNA and the DNA of Neaderthals. The groups being compared are ancient homo sapiens and Neanderthals, on the one hand, and modern homo sapiens and Neaderthals, on the other hand.
If we negate answer choice C), then that means the difference or 'gap' between our ancestor's DNA and that of Neanderthals is smaller than the gap between our DNA and that of Neanderthals. It does not mean that our ancestor's DNA is more similar to that of Neanderthals than it is to ours.
The grammar parsing was super hard. I only understand the comparative claim after reading/watching the video.
But now I understand that: if [the DNA of prehistoric Homo Sapien ancestors was NOT significantly more similar to Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans], it would mean that the fact premise [the DNA of contemporary humans being significantly different than that of the Neanderthal] would not necessarily support the conclusion that they didn't interbreed. That fact could be the result of genetic change over time after interbreeding.
@JDMarathon this really helped me out so much thank you thank you
crazy how an argument about whether or not our ancestors got a piece of neanderthal nookie can send you into a chimp-like fury.
C's wording made no sense to me. Hope I am not alone #help
I agree. This seems to be a case of LSAC wording a question in an intentionally confusing way. I misread "not more similar" as "no less similar", meaning that the DNA would have equal similarities to Neanderthals as to humans. But by being "not more similar", that means that there must be an equal OR GREATER amount of similarities between early and modern human DNA than early humans and Neanderthals.
These are very poor explanations!
I got the question right intuitively but still can't articulate the reasoning. The lesson didn't help much either.
Very sometimes, JY's explanation relies on us being on the same level as him and feels like the explanation is inadequate. But I personally don't think this video is one of those. For one, answer choices other than C are so irrelvant that I think C would be a good contender by indirect proof. But JY explaining the distinction between Ancester Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Modern humans sufficiently explain the gap in the argument.
The stimulus implies that there is a DNA discrepency between Ancester HS and Neanderthals but YET uses as evidence the discrepency between MODERN HS and Neanderthals. Therefore, we need a necessary condition that ties this gap. Just by knowing this (and this is what JY explained), C is right. But JY even went beyond and explained the logic behind C; C
was pretty much saying that the Ancester HS was different from Neanderthal as much as modern HS was different from Neanderthal. This ties the gap. Hopefully this helped.
Same here... I can sort of follow the explanation, but I don't quite fully understand it.
If you negate the CA choice, the argument falls apart. If it were the case that the DNA of our ancestors, prehistoric homo sapiens, were more similar to that of Neanderthals than our DNA today, then that would render the argument destroyed. The stimulus is saying that when they compared Neanderthal DNA to ours (humans today), they found significant differences, but we are left to assume that would be the case if they also examined the DNA of our ancestors.
I hope this helps!
If anyone is having a problem deciphering this question type Kevin Lin’s video explaining NA questions really helped me!
Link:
the last question tried to stop me, but i always make a comeback
same
Bro I ate 🌭
im dying here
I should win an award for narrowing it down to the two most popular answers every time. I got this one correct because I looked at E, accepted it as true then asked what did it do for the argument? It still leaves unanswered problems such as the correct answer C
My intuition is finally starting to pick these up... TO put into perspective I had no idea what I was doing only two weeks ago. Do not give up, your brain will catch up
Same!! It is such a sign or relief haha
Initially had the correct answer but fell for E. smh
I think I'm just gonna take the L on this one. Genuinely have no clue how to decipher C. This is the most confusing grammar I've ever seen on a test question
@NathanielWright agreed.
I will 100% be skipping these on the test because wtf
Thats how I feel about sufficient assumption, they almost caused me to have a real life mental break lol