Not sure why it is A and not D. When they say some, what if the amount is not significant? Versus D, we don't know that trees emit less than they absorb hence it could hasten global warming.
How would planting the trees hasten global warming if not that it somehow speeds up the process? Wouldn't the trees just be less effective in absorbing carbon rather than outright harmful?
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. :-)
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.
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
#feedbackhow someone from 7sage please answer.... I asked how do I know when to start taking preptests and they said that the study scheduled of CV2 would tell me however, I do not see ANY preptest to take on the schedule or any guidance on when to take it... help please
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)
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.
48 comments
If there is a new term in the argument like in SA can we assume that the answer would have that new term in it?
I prefer when JY goes through the answers in the order they appear than when he goes straight to the correct answer.
Am I correct in assuming that answer choice D would still be the right answer choice if it said few instead of some?
Not sure why it is A and not D. When they say some, what if the amount is not significant? Versus D, we don't know that trees emit less than they absorb hence it could hasten global warming.
should I just be focusing on the argument itself rather than also paying attention to context?
Would it also be a necessary assumption if there was an answer choice that said: Trees and native grasses absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide?
How would planting the trees hasten global warming if not that it somehow speeds up the process? Wouldn't the trees just be less effective in absorbing carbon rather than outright harmful?
been feeling good this whole time and now NA is so royally kicking my ass
why is this one optional?
can someone tell me how the negating trick would work here
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. :-)
finally got one right HAHA
I didn't understand this for the longest time because I had forgotten what hasten meant lol
#feedback It would be great to be able to see the difficulty level of the questions being used during the lesson.
love JY's voice in my head saying "Who cares?!"
"Okay? Who cares?" - J.Y's Greatest Hits
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: ....
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.
This would mess with me because I assume hastened meant to make cease.
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.
#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
#feedbackhow someone from 7sage please answer.... I asked how do I know when to start taking preptests and they said that the study scheduled of CV2 would tell me however, I do not see ANY preptest to take on the schedule or any guidance on when to take it... help please
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)