I cannot be the only one who reads "causal" as "casual" EVERY. TIME. It makes sense to my brain because we learned about formal logic and now ~casual~ reasoning
As I was watching this video, I got stuck on why it is the case that every driver MUST be affected in the same exact way for the premises to support the conclusion and the argument not fall apart. If every driver is affected differently, couldn’t one still draw a conclusion that those who perform best when the supervisor is present (because the affect can be different for different people) will perform best under normal conditions. Are we trying to say that it’s necessary for the supervisor’s general effect to be the same and not necessarily how the driver is affected? I feel like that is different or I’m just dumb lol.
@AngelPerez Because the argument claims those who drive best with the supervisor are likely to be the best driver, it is necessary to assume that all drivers are impacted to the same extent or else the argument falls apart.
What if driver A drives 5x better under supervision because they're being held accountable whereas driver B has testing anxiety and therefore drives 2x worse than normal? This would destroy the argument. Since they aren't impacted to the same extent, we wouldn't be able to conclude which drivers are better under normal conditions.
I hope this helps! This was how I selected the correct answer (negating the answer I believe is correct to evaluate it helps me with this questions).
@rjon27 Thank you! This was very helpful. I’ve learned that this was an assumption I automatically applied to the argument to make the argument even make sense in my head. So very helpful but also hate this argument lol.
i understand this specific example, however for future reference.. if there are 2 answers that both strengthen the argument, how can you decide which is the correct necessary assumption? any simplified way of analyzing this to have as a set rule?
I love how each video breaks down questions but, I think it would be beneficial if I could see the entire question (with answers) before hearing the explanation.
@AndrewWiedenkeller I never understood how people said they could see the question and answers beforehand, but what you put made me look up and finally find it. Thank you!!
#help when doing NA questions is there a sufficient condition & necessary condition in the argument? Or is the argument providing a sufficient condition and the answer is the necessary condition that we have to assume for the conclusion to follow logically?
Anyone have tips/tricks for pointing out trap answer choices? I can usually eliminate some choices with relative ease, but I find it difficult on NA questions to point out the ones that are strengtheners or "pretend to strengthen"
#feedback. Would it be possible to add an option to see the "analytics" for these sample questions? (difficulty level, suggested time). Would be super helpful to gauge my understanding of these questions when practicing
Could someone explain to me in different terms why C is incorrect and D is correct? I'm super stuck on how C points in one direction (drivers are affected negatively) and is wrong but D says all drivers are affected equally and is right.
C: So, the drivers who perform the best with a supervisor are the best drivers without the supervisors.
The argument relies on a key assumption that the supervisors impact each driver EQUALLY. Lets say we have two bus drivers, Max and Joe who drive equally as well (with a rating of A+). With the supervisor present, Max feels annoyed at the presence of the supervisor, but still is able to drive like he normally does, so he gets an A+ (like normal). Now lets say that the supervisor makes Joe very nervous, and he blows a stop sign and is given a C- by the supervisor. Does this scenario support the claim that the drivers who perform the best with the supervisors are the best without the supervisor? NO, because two equally good drivers experience varying levels of impact from the presence of the supervisor. If answer D was NOT TRUE, then the argument falls apart. If we say that each driver is NOT impacted equally, then we see how the Max/Joe situation proves the conclusion false.
For answer C, lets look at Joe and Max again. They both drive at an A+ level, but with the supervisor, they are both bumped down to A-. This isn't absolutely necessary for the conclusion to be true. What is the presence of a supervisor makes their performance dramatically worse, and they get bumped down to a D? This still doesn't make the conclusion absolutely certain.
#feedback I find that not all videos appear with a toggle for the speed of playback. Sometimes it's visible and sometimes not. It seems to vary randomly.
(If I'm understanding correctly) A sufficient assumption, if made, guarantees that the argument will follow. A necessary assumption, if made, is exactly what is needed for the possibility of the argument following, but is not directly relevant to the strength of the argument.
Both are strengthen-style reasoning. Both "must be true," technically, but one makes an outcome unavoidable, while the other is merely intended to establish the baseline of a support relationship.
Think of it like this (I hate math but this surprisingly helped me):
Sufficient: 2 +3 + ?
We're trying to solve the answer because that's sufficient enough. It's straightforward and is a GUARANTEE/SUFFICIENT answer
Necessary: 2 + ? = 5
Now, we need to find the number NECESSARY in order to make sure 5 is truly the answer. If the number was not 3, then the entire math equation would be wrong
i would heavily suggest going back to foundations of lawgic sections because necessary and sufficent conditions are really important to have huge grasps on
Is it a safe assumption that "affect" here is "negatively affect"? I mean the stim says the bus drivers complain....why would they complain if the presence of a supervisor is positively affecting their performance?
#feedback I don't find it helpful to only show the right answer first, I think it would be more helpful in the lesson to take a look at all the answers, take a quick guess, and then dive into which one is right and which ones are wrong. It's too obvious why it's the right answer when it's already explained beforehand. On the test, the answers are laid out first, and then it becomes clear which one is correct, not the other way around.
You can preview the question before watching the explanation if you click the "quick view" button at the top of the video. That way you can pick an answer first before he explains the right and wrong answers.
The way I see it the arguments main point is that everyone gets affected by the supervisors presence whether bad or good hence why we have to assume its universal how the supervisor affects them and their reaction depends on the same stance of the supervisor. If that makes sense.
Basically, we are figuring out which one NEEDS to be true. We do need each person to be affected in about the same way for the argument to be true, so D correct.
C is not correct because we don't need to know that people are affected slightly or that their performance is worse. We just need to know that the effect is, on balance, about the same.
I selected C as I fell for the trap answer. I feel that C is trying to convince us to think that the presence of the supervisor makes the bus driver perform less effectively but that is the repetition of the premises. Also, I did not look carefully at words like most and slightly which is certain along with it not being necessary but sufficient.
The idea that the direction and size of the impact has to be roughly the same still doesn't stick to me. I get that the ranking order in both situations (with or without supervisor) has to remain the same to make the conclusion work, but that conclusion can still be valid even if the direction and size of the impact are different? For example:
The best driver's performance without supervisor is 5, and their performance gets BETTER with supervisor (let's say +5), so their final score with supervisor is 10 (and 5 without).
The worst driver's performance without supervisor is 3, and their performance gets WORSE with supervisor (let's say -5), so their final score with supervisor is -2 (and 3 without).
Assuming the drivers in between the BEST and the WORST categories in this example all have the same and consistent direction and size (i.e. direction opposite to their performance getting BETTER with the size of the impact on their performance getting BIGGER), doesn't this example show that the direction and size could be different but their ranking order in either situation (with or without supervisor) remains the same?
I think you are missing a very crucial piece of this.. try flipping the example you used and see how it affects the rating. The way you are thinking about it appears to be very biased towards one way of thinking about this.
So, using the same example but going the other way, it should be more clear.
The best driver’s performance without supervisor is 5, and their performance gets WORSE with supervisor (let’s say -5), so their final score with supervisor is 0 (and 5 without).
The worst driver’s performance without supervisor is 3, and their performance gets BETTER with supervisor (let’s say +5), so their final score with supervisor is 8 (and 3 without).
So now the best driver is classified as worse and the worst driver is rated better than the best.. does that help?
Basically, if the affects of the supervisor are not consistent, then the accuracy of the ratings could be skewed in either direction.
The way I thought about it is adding a factor like a driver having severe anxiety. That driver's performance would be disproportionately impacted by the presence of a supervisor, therefore you couldn't argue that the effect on all the best drivers would be the same.
So:
Driver 1 (anxious): 9/10 pre supervisor
Driver 2 (not anxious) 9/10 pre supervisor
+ Supervisor presence
Driver 1 (anxious): 5/10
Driver 2 (not anxious) 7/10
Even with top performers the same variable (presence of a supervisor) would disproportionately effect one of the drivers. It's not just the driver's skills that act as the baseline for the variable to take effect, rather the traits of the driver themselves. This would then shuffle the order of rankings even with a similar starting score.
Its a pretty abstract example but I Hope that helps !
I just found that last night and helps alot, plus Kevin just joined 7Sage. I am struggling with the negation of C here and how it doesn't fit. I see how D is correct though.
I am not sure my approach is okay, but here is my approach to D.
So, for NA problems, negate test is important. If we negate the option D, then "The bus drivers are affected differently to the different extent by the presence of the supervisor." Now, we have to check if this negated version can break the conclusion.
The conclusion is "Best driver with supervisor → Best driver without supervisor", and I translate this conclusion more simply (too much though, I think) "The presence of supervisor has NO impact on ranking".
The negated D can be simply translated like "The presence of the supervisor can have SOME impact on ranking somehow". Therefore, I finalize that okay, negated D breaks the conclusion insisting 'NO impact!'.
The negated C is simply translated like "There are some bust drivers that the presence of a supervisor makes their performance slightly better" (Since Most ↔︎ Some and worse ↔︎ better). But, this cannot 'break' the conclusion "No impact of supervisor".
In summary, for NA questions, it would be helpful to find the AC that can more fundamentally break the conclusion when being negated.
i would just say "they're not affected the same way" which destroys the conclusion being that the best with the supervisor is also the best without the supervisor
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.
54 comments
I was actually able to predict this, albeit vaguely
I cannot be the only one who reads "causal" as "casual" EVERY. TIME. It makes sense to my brain because we learned about formal logic and now ~casual~ reasoning
@abi9ailf 🎩 reasoning and 👖 reasoning
FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT
FINALLY got an NA question right on the first try!!
As I was watching this video, I got stuck on why it is the case that every driver MUST be affected in the same exact way for the premises to support the conclusion and the argument not fall apart. If every driver is affected differently, couldn’t one still draw a conclusion that those who perform best when the supervisor is present (because the affect can be different for different people) will perform best under normal conditions. Are we trying to say that it’s necessary for the supervisor’s general effect to be the same and not necessarily how the driver is affected? I feel like that is different or I’m just dumb lol.
@AngelPerez Because the argument claims those who drive best with the supervisor are likely to be the best driver, it is necessary to assume that all drivers are impacted to the same extent or else the argument falls apart.
What if driver A drives 5x better under supervision because they're being held accountable whereas driver B has testing anxiety and therefore drives 2x worse than normal? This would destroy the argument. Since they aren't impacted to the same extent, we wouldn't be able to conclude which drivers are better under normal conditions.
I hope this helps! This was how I selected the correct answer (negating the answer I believe is correct to evaluate it helps me with this questions).
@rjon27 Very helpful thank you.
@rjon27 Thank you! This was very helpful. I’ve learned that this was an assumption I automatically applied to the argument to make the argument even make sense in my head. So very helpful but also hate this argument lol.
i gain nothing from being shown the right answer first. these lessons are useless if i am not able to evaluate answers.
@malieb You can click the "Show Question" button at the top (under the title) to try the question yourself first.
i understand this specific example, however for future reference.. if there are 2 answers that both strengthen the argument, how can you decide which is the correct necessary assumption? any simplified way of analyzing this to have as a set rule?
@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN negation has been working for me.
I love how each video breaks down questions but, I think it would be beneficial if I could see the entire question (with answers) before hearing the explanation.
@Calibjamess
Under Lesson 3- Bus Driver Performance (The title)
There are three options:
Press Show question (eye symbol) to show you the question so you can practice before looking at the explanation!
Good Luck!
@AndrewWiedenkeller I never understood how people said they could see the question and answers beforehand, but what you put made me look up and finally find it. Thank you!!
@Calibjamess you can. Before clicking play scroll to the top and hit view question.
#help when doing NA questions is there a sufficient condition & necessary condition in the argument? Or is the argument providing a sufficient condition and the answer is the necessary condition that we have to assume for the conclusion to follow logically?
Anyone have tips/tricks for pointing out trap answer choices? I can usually eliminate some choices with relative ease, but I find it difficult on NA questions to point out the ones that are strengtheners or "pretend to strengthen"
#feedback. Would it be possible to add an option to see the "analytics" for these sample questions? (difficulty level, suggested time). Would be super helpful to gauge my understanding of these questions when practicing
"The judges are not basing their judgements off entirely arbitrary criteria."
Because the conclusion only relates to how well drivers will drive, this pretend answer would still not be a correct NA right?
@aldertree00644 I think you're correct. The conclusion is about the drivers' actual performance, not the score that the supervisors attribute them.
Could someone explain to me in different terms why C is incorrect and D is correct? I'm super stuck on how C points in one direction (drivers are affected negatively) and is wrong but D says all drivers are affected equally and is right.
The argument is as follows:
P: The supervisors presence affects every driver
C: So, the drivers who perform the best with a supervisor are the best drivers without the supervisors.
The argument relies on a key assumption that the supervisors impact each driver EQUALLY. Lets say we have two bus drivers, Max and Joe who drive equally as well (with a rating of A+). With the supervisor present, Max feels annoyed at the presence of the supervisor, but still is able to drive like he normally does, so he gets an A+ (like normal). Now lets say that the supervisor makes Joe very nervous, and he blows a stop sign and is given a C- by the supervisor. Does this scenario support the claim that the drivers who perform the best with the supervisors are the best without the supervisor? NO, because two equally good drivers experience varying levels of impact from the presence of the supervisor. If answer D was NOT TRUE, then the argument falls apart. If we say that each driver is NOT impacted equally, then we see how the Max/Joe situation proves the conclusion false.
For answer C, lets look at Joe and Max again. They both drive at an A+ level, but with the supervisor, they are both bumped down to A-. This isn't absolutely necessary for the conclusion to be true. What is the presence of a supervisor makes their performance dramatically worse, and they get bumped down to a D? This still doesn't make the conclusion absolutely certain.
I hope this helps!
This was super helpful tysm!!
#feedback I find that not all videos appear with a toggle for the speed of playback. Sometimes it's visible and sometimes not. It seems to vary randomly.
If you refresh the page it will show up
I'm still confused about this. What's the difference between a necessary assumption and a sufficient assumption?
(If I'm understanding correctly) A sufficient assumption, if made, guarantees that the argument will follow. A necessary assumption, if made, is exactly what is needed for the possibility of the argument following, but is not directly relevant to the strength of the argument.
Both are strengthen-style reasoning. Both "must be true," technically, but one makes an outcome unavoidable, while the other is merely intended to establish the baseline of a support relationship.
thank you for this!
Think of it like this (I hate math but this surprisingly helped me):
Sufficient: 2 +3 + ?
We're trying to solve the answer because that's sufficient enough. It's straightforward and is a GUARANTEE/SUFFICIENT answer
Necessary: 2 + ? = 5
Now, we need to find the number NECESSARY in order to make sure 5 is truly the answer. If the number was not 3, then the entire math equation would be wrong
Hope this helped!!
i would heavily suggest going back to foundations of lawgic sections because necessary and sufficent conditions are really important to have huge grasps on
Is it a safe assumption that "affect" here is "negatively affect"? I mean the stim says the bus drivers complain....why would they complain if the presence of a supervisor is positively affecting their performance?
Nothing is safe Aang. The point is, we have to assume they are affected both positively and negatively.
But yes, my default is to assume its a negative correlation. However, I have met people who perform better when others watch.
#feedback I don't find it helpful to only show the right answer first, I think it would be more helpful in the lesson to take a look at all the answers, take a quick guess, and then dive into which one is right and which ones are wrong. It's too obvious why it's the right answer when it's already explained beforehand. On the test, the answers are laid out first, and then it becomes clear which one is correct, not the other way around.
You can preview the question before watching the explanation if you click the "quick view" button at the top of the video. That way you can pick an answer first before he explains the right and wrong answers.
how do I get the hard ones right and the easiest ones wrong...
why do i only get the lesson questions correct and not the You Try questions? lol
omg same I don't understand
I still don't understand why c is wrong #help
The way I see it the arguments main point is that everyone gets affected by the supervisors presence whether bad or good hence why we have to assume its universal how the supervisor affects them and their reaction depends on the same stance of the supervisor. If that makes sense.
Basically, we are figuring out which one NEEDS to be true. We do need each person to be affected in about the same way for the argument to be true, so D correct.
C is not correct because we don't need to know that people are affected slightly or that their performance is worse. We just need to know that the effect is, on balance, about the same.
I selected C as I fell for the trap answer. I feel that C is trying to convince us to think that the presence of the supervisor makes the bus driver perform less effectively but that is the repetition of the premises. Also, I did not look carefully at words like most and slightly which is certain along with it not being necessary but sufficient.
#help #help #help
The idea that the direction and size of the impact has to be roughly the same still doesn't stick to me. I get that the ranking order in both situations (with or without supervisor) has to remain the same to make the conclusion work, but that conclusion can still be valid even if the direction and size of the impact are different? For example:
The best driver's performance without supervisor is 5, and their performance gets BETTER with supervisor (let's say +5), so their final score with supervisor is 10 (and 5 without).
The worst driver's performance without supervisor is 3, and their performance gets WORSE with supervisor (let's say -5), so their final score with supervisor is -2 (and 3 without).
Assuming the drivers in between the BEST and the WORST categories in this example all have the same and consistent direction and size (i.e. direction opposite to their performance getting BETTER with the size of the impact on their performance getting BIGGER), doesn't this example show that the direction and size could be different but their ranking order in either situation (with or without supervisor) remains the same?
I think you are missing a very crucial piece of this.. try flipping the example you used and see how it affects the rating. The way you are thinking about it appears to be very biased towards one way of thinking about this.
So, using the same example but going the other way, it should be more clear.
The best driver’s performance without supervisor is 5, and their performance gets WORSE with supervisor (let’s say -5), so their final score with supervisor is 0 (and 5 without).
The worst driver’s performance without supervisor is 3, and their performance gets BETTER with supervisor (let’s say +5), so their final score with supervisor is 8 (and 3 without).
So now the best driver is classified as worse and the worst driver is rated better than the best.. does that help?
Basically, if the affects of the supervisor are not consistent, then the accuracy of the ratings could be skewed in either direction.
The way I thought about it is adding a factor like a driver having severe anxiety. That driver's performance would be disproportionately impacted by the presence of a supervisor, therefore you couldn't argue that the effect on all the best drivers would be the same.
So:
Driver 1 (anxious): 9/10 pre supervisor
Driver 2 (not anxious) 9/10 pre supervisor
+ Supervisor presence
Driver 1 (anxious): 5/10
Driver 2 (not anxious) 7/10
Even with top performers the same variable (presence of a supervisor) would disproportionately effect one of the drivers. It's not just the driver's skills that act as the baseline for the variable to take effect, rather the traits of the driver themselves. This would then shuffle the order of rankings even with a similar starting score.
Its a pretty abstract example but I Hope that helps !
For anyone struggling, Illuminate LSAT on Youtube has a really good series on necessary assumptions which fits well into the 7Sage curriculum
I just found that last night and helps alot, plus Kevin just joined 7Sage. I am struggling with the negation of C here and how it doesn't fit. I see how D is correct though.
I am not sure my approach is okay, but here is my approach to D.
So, for NA problems, negate test is important. If we negate the option D, then "The bus drivers are affected differently to the different extent by the presence of the supervisor." Now, we have to check if this negated version can break the conclusion.
The conclusion is "Best driver with supervisor → Best driver without supervisor", and I translate this conclusion more simply (too much though, I think) "The presence of supervisor has NO impact on ranking".
The negated D can be simply translated like "The presence of the supervisor can have SOME impact on ranking somehow". Therefore, I finalize that okay, negated D breaks the conclusion insisting 'NO impact!'.
The negated C is simply translated like "There are some bust drivers that the presence of a supervisor makes their performance slightly better" (Since Most ↔︎ Some and worse ↔︎ better). But, this cannot 'break' the conclusion "No impact of supervisor".
In summary, for NA questions, it would be helpful to find the AC that can more fundamentally break the conclusion when being negated.
Should I try out the mini drills here under time pressure and then BR and take the time I want? Or do it untimed all together?
Where can I find the introduction to the different types of reasoning?
Hi there,
There's a forum post where one of our tutors, Raphael, listed and summarized the various types of LR questions. Here's the link to the post:
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/31274/summarizing-lr-question-types
You can also find these types of LR questions as subheadings under the "Logical Reasoning" section of the Syllabus. Please see the screenshot below:
Lastly, you can also check the LR Cheat Sheet from our blog here:
https://7sage.com/how-to-break-down-logical-reasoning/
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions.
How would you negate AC D?
#help Added by Admin
i would just say "they're not affected the same way" which destroys the conclusion being that the best with the supervisor is also the best without the supervisor