I feel like these answer explanations could be better. Often times, it sounds like he's coming from the perspective of someone who already knows what the right answer is and every explanation is in relevance to the correct answer. Instead, I'd appreciate if he came from the pov of why someone would find that answer attractive and explain why that is flawed. For example, Answer choice C could be attractive to someone who had accurately predicted the correct answer to be about how planting trees leads to less native grasses. At a quick read, if you're looking for that answer, it seems like the LSAC team knows that and is trying to trick you. You're likely thinking "deforested" as in cleared out of grasses to plant the tree. Yes that is a dumb conclusion if you really think about what deforested means, but likely at a quick read you may find yourself overlooking that word because you know what you're looking for. The brain has been proven to see faces in trees and cars and shadows when we're looking for them, shapes in clouds or ink blots, etc. When you're looking for something, your brain naturally fills in the gaps, and that is something LSAC seems to try to play off of here.
@bbcream Please let me know if you find a diff lesson/tutor that explains it through this way! I agree with you that oftentimes while quickly glancing at the answer questions, I overlook certain words.
D is definitely the best answer, I'll grant it that, and I know the right answer just has to be the best answer and not the perfect one. But this pisses me off because I don't think it's actually necessary.
Go ahead and negate D. Then we're left with the fact that no trees have been planted where native grasses would otherwise be growing. That leaves plenty of room, however, for the trees to harm native grasses in other ways. These could be trees with wide canopies that don't leave enough sunlight for the native grasses to survive. That means you could plant a row of trees NEXT to native grasses without displacing native grasses and those grasses could still die because the canopies stretch over where they do grow, block sunlight, and kill the grasses.
i swear the demostration questions i can predict the right answer fairly easily, but any time i jump into a "you try" question, it jumps up to max difficulty smh
kinda putting what I learned from this lesson and D being the right answer in two takeaways:
1. a choice strengthening the argument is necessary for it to be the right answer in NA but not sufficient for it to be so. (this is the logic attractive trap answer choices play on)
right answer --> strengthens argument
NOT strengthens argument --> NOT right answer
this means that the right answer will make the argument better. what's problematic is that the degree of strength can be anything, and thus fulfilling the necessary condition doesn't really tell us anything since we're looking for a result that would guarantee the right answer. a choice strengthening the argument doesn't tell us anything about it being the right answer, as there could be several other choices that also strengthen the argument in different ways.
2. a choice that is necessary for the argument is sufficient for it to be the right answer but not necessary for it to be so.
MBT if argument true --> right answer
NOT right answer --> NOT MBT if argument true
this means that if the choice presents an assumption that absolutely must be true for the argument to be valid, then it's the right answer. this is why choice with weak language like "some" etc. are attractive, as the burden of proof must be as low as possible b/c we want the lowest floor.
this sounds kinda confusing but it makes sense to me. :-)
Update: yeah your takeaways helped me explain the very next question to myself initially the same way that JY went on to explain it in explanation video.
The conclusion of the argument is that incentives to plant trees are hastening (speeding up) global warming. Why? Because native grasses absorb and store carbon dioxide more effectively than do trees.
This logic requires that D be correct. Take the negation: It is not true that some of the trees planted in response to the incentives are planted where native grasses would otherwise be growing.
If the logic of the argument is that, because native grasses are a better option than trees for preventing climate change (even though trees are still positive), planting trees makes climate change worse, then it is required that it is assumed these trees would be planted INSTEAD of native grasses. And if you negate answer choice D, this is not true, blowing up the argument.
I hope that helps! I think negating is the easiest way to approach these qs, especially If you don't have a general feel for what the right answer will be after reading the stim.
It would be helpful after going through all the answers to see all 5 AC's. JY was talking about answer choice A at the end, or how one AC was like another, but without seeing them all together it can be hard to remember the wording of the answer choices. It would help to see them to compare and process the recurring defects of ACs
I'm confused how this would be a necessary assumption question. I see how D would be sufficient to explain the conclusion but couldn't there be other assumptions that explain why incentives would hasten global warming. Like if I used the negation test, I don't see how this answer choice would destroy the support structure. #help (Added by admin)
Well, the conclusion isn't that incentives hasten global warming, its that the incentives to plant trees hastens global warming. And increasing global warming is not the same as simply having no effect on it. So it can't just be that planting trees isn't helping global warming as much as planting native grass would, it has to be that planting trees is specifically having a NEGATIVE effect on global warming by increasing it. So we need an assumption that explain how planting trees is somehow connected to native grass in a way that speeds up global warming. I hope this makes some sense if any lol!
Im a bit confused on how D is a necessary assumption when the premise gives no indication that trees are planted where grass is? Don’t NA have to keep the argument alive? Because if it’s not D it could still be others options.
@JacobFaubion D is the only answer that makes the conclusion true (planting trees is speeding up global warming).
If D is false, then we can say that planting trees is slowing down global warming (helping it), since we would assume its not replacing something that is more effective (native grass)
Both together actually slow down global warming since both are still effective, one is just more effective than the other (grass). By assuming D we give a scenario that allows the conclusion to be true.
i think i am starting to understand why negation works. until now, i would try to negate to see if the assumption is really necessary but i still did not get how exactly the argument 'falls apart'. i see now that negation works but you need to focus on the conclusion - does the conclusion make sense after you have negated the potential necessary assumption? If the conclusion does NOT make sense anymore, then you found the necessary assumption.
i think the answer choice A was truly flawed, because the choice can be viewed as presuming that the trees are the ONLY plants - nothing else - that absorb carbon dioxide. Even if planted trees emit carbon dioxide, other plants - such as native grasses - could simply absorb that carbon dioxide. Therefore, the stimulus is assuming that in those several countries, trees were the only ones being planted for the purpose of absorbing carbon dioxide and replacing other, albeit more effective plants.
64 comments
correct answer: shows up
me: ahhh...here is the correct answer
J.Y.: ookayyy.....
me: maybe not? proceeds to religiously second-guess
J.Y.: at minimum you should pay attention to this answer....but that doesn't make it right
me: accepting the fact that i will never be a lawyer
J.Y.: however.....it is right :)
me: ....
"Okay? Who cares?" - J.Y's Greatest Hits
doing these questions is my daily humiliation ritual at this point
I prefer when JY goes through the answers in the order they appear than when he goes straight to the correct answer.
@sylviacassidy agreed
I feel like these answer explanations could be better. Often times, it sounds like he's coming from the perspective of someone who already knows what the right answer is and every explanation is in relevance to the correct answer. Instead, I'd appreciate if he came from the pov of why someone would find that answer attractive and explain why that is flawed. For example, Answer choice C could be attractive to someone who had accurately predicted the correct answer to be about how planting trees leads to less native grasses. At a quick read, if you're looking for that answer, it seems like the LSAC team knows that and is trying to trick you. You're likely thinking "deforested" as in cleared out of grasses to plant the tree. Yes that is a dumb conclusion if you really think about what deforested means, but likely at a quick read you may find yourself overlooking that word because you know what you're looking for. The brain has been proven to see faces in trees and cars and shadows when we're looking for them, shapes in clouds or ink blots, etc. When you're looking for something, your brain naturally fills in the gaps, and that is something LSAC seems to try to play off of here.
@bbcream Please let me know if you find a diff lesson/tutor that explains it through this way! I agree with you that oftentimes while quickly glancing at the answer questions, I overlook certain words.
been feeling good this whole time and now NA is so royally kicking my ass
oh my god same. I am crashing and burning.
I didn't understand this for the longest time because I had forgotten what hasten meant lol
Sometimes, there are perks to having religious trauma. I heard this word waaaaaay too frequently growing up.
Me too! I think I was conflating "hasten" with "halting."
love JY's voice in my head saying "Who cares?!"
This would mess with me because I assume hastened meant to make cease.
The only way I knew what haste meant: "You must make haste"- Eloise Bridgerton
LOLLL real
D is definitely the best answer, I'll grant it that, and I know the right answer just has to be the best answer and not the perfect one. But this pisses me off because I don't think it's actually necessary.
Go ahead and negate D. Then we're left with the fact that no trees have been planted where native grasses would otherwise be growing. That leaves plenty of room, however, for the trees to harm native grasses in other ways. These could be trees with wide canopies that don't leave enough sunlight for the native grasses to survive. That means you could plant a row of trees NEXT to native grasses without displacing native grasses and those grasses could still die because the canopies stretch over where they do grow, block sunlight, and kill the grasses.
i swear the demostration questions i can predict the right answer fairly easily, but any time i jump into a "you try" question, it jumps up to max difficulty smh
@ShawnD02 SAME
Feel like this is one that you get by POE, not any good answers but D is by far the most relevant answer out of the five.
I would have gotten this wrong because I didn't know what hasten meant lol
kinda putting what I learned from this lesson and D being the right answer in two takeaways:
1. a choice strengthening the argument is necessary for it to be the right answer in NA but not sufficient for it to be so. (this is the logic attractive trap answer choices play on)
right answer --> strengthens argument
NOT strengthens argument --> NOT right answer
this means that the right answer will make the argument better. what's problematic is that the degree of strength can be anything, and thus fulfilling the necessary condition doesn't really tell us anything since we're looking for a result that would guarantee the right answer. a choice strengthening the argument doesn't tell us anything about it being the right answer, as there could be several other choices that also strengthen the argument in different ways.
2. a choice that is necessary for the argument is sufficient for it to be the right answer but not necessary for it to be so.
MBT if argument true --> right answer
NOT right answer --> NOT MBT if argument true
this means that if the choice presents an assumption that absolutely must be true for the argument to be valid, then it's the right answer. this is why choice with weak language like "some" etc. are attractive, as the burden of proof must be as low as possible b/c we want the lowest floor.
this sounds kinda confusing but it makes sense to me. :-)
I like don't fully fully understand what you're saying but I think your explanation is definitely helping me move in the right direction conceptually
Update: yeah your takeaways helped me explain the very next question to myself initially the same way that JY went on to explain it in explanation video.
can someone tell me how the negating trick would work here
#help
The conclusion of the argument is that incentives to plant trees are hastening (speeding up) global warming. Why? Because native grasses absorb and store carbon dioxide more effectively than do trees.
This logic requires that D be correct. Take the negation: It is not true that some of the trees planted in response to the incentives are planted where native grasses would otherwise be growing.
If the logic of the argument is that, because native grasses are a better option than trees for preventing climate change (even though trees are still positive), planting trees makes climate change worse, then it is required that it is assumed these trees would be planted INSTEAD of native grasses. And if you negate answer choice D, this is not true, blowing up the argument.
I hope that helps! I think negating is the easiest way to approach these qs, especially If you don't have a general feel for what the right answer will be after reading the stim.
"then it is required that it is assumed these trees would be planted INSTEAD of native grasses." I looked at my screen like you discovered fire.
#feedback
It would be helpful after going through all the answers to see all 5 AC's. JY was talking about answer choice A at the end, or how one AC was like another, but without seeing them all together it can be hard to remember the wording of the answer choices. It would help to see them to compare and process the recurring defects of ACs
agreed!
Agreed.
I'm confused how this would be a necessary assumption question. I see how D would be sufficient to explain the conclusion but couldn't there be other assumptions that explain why incentives would hasten global warming. Like if I used the negation test, I don't see how this answer choice would destroy the support structure. #help (Added by admin)
I was confused about the same thing.. in my mind, D seems sufficient to link the premise + conclusion, but not actually necessary
Well, the conclusion isn't that incentives hasten global warming, its that the incentives to plant trees hastens global warming. And increasing global warming is not the same as simply having no effect on it. So it can't just be that planting trees isn't helping global warming as much as planting native grass would, it has to be that planting trees is specifically having a NEGATIVE effect on global warming by increasing it. So we need an assumption that explain how planting trees is somehow connected to native grass in a way that speeds up global warming. I hope this makes some sense if any lol!
this is great thanks so much!
Damn, you explained this so well! I appreciate many of your comments on here:)
I didn’t read D completely. Native grass would be growing” would’ve stuck out immediately. Le sigh
Im a bit confused on how D is a necessary assumption when the premise gives no indication that trees are planted where grass is? Don’t NA have to keep the argument alive? Because if it’s not D it could still be others options.
@JacobFaubion D is the only answer that makes the conclusion true (planting trees is speeding up global warming).
If D is false, then we can say that planting trees is slowing down global warming (helping it), since we would assume its not replacing something that is more effective (native grass)
Both together actually slow down global warming since both are still effective, one is just more effective than the other (grass). By assuming D we give a scenario that allows the conclusion to be true.
finally got one right HAHA
I wish he would have mentioned the negation test on A because I think that's also a significant reason why A is not the correct answer.
"It's not true that trees not only absorb carbon dioxide but also emit it."
It doesn't impact the argument at all when you negate it, the argument is still just as valid as it was before.
(PS if I'm wrong, please let me know, I'm by no means an expert)
why is this one optional?
#feedback I also do not understand the point of optional lessons. Just make them lessons lol
i think i am starting to understand why negation works. until now, i would try to negate to see if the assumption is really necessary but i still did not get how exactly the argument 'falls apart'. i see now that negation works but you need to focus on the conclusion - does the conclusion make sense after you have negated the potential necessary assumption? If the conclusion does NOT make sense anymore, then you found the necessary assumption.
i think the answer choice A was truly flawed, because the choice can be viewed as presuming that the trees are the ONLY plants - nothing else - that absorb carbon dioxide. Even if planted trees emit carbon dioxide, other plants - such as native grasses - could simply absorb that carbon dioxide. Therefore, the stimulus is assuming that in those several countries, trees were the only ones being planted for the purpose of absorbing carbon dioxide and replacing other, albeit more effective plants.
me when i get this wrong because i thought the word hasten meant the opposite (and also this section is eliminating me lol)
@Sarah975248 Knowing which section to focus on is a blessing in disguise!