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.
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.
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.
@MyaPapaya For the most part, id say so. Between the premises and the conclusion is where you're going to find the gap/assumptions in the argument that'll often lead you to the necessary assumption. But its still important to understand the context and its relationship to the rest of the argument to make sure you dont overlook any important details.
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?
Because native grasses, which are more effective at absorbing carbon, are being replaced by trees (which are less effective at absorbing carbon) because of the government incentive, which is what answer D implies.
Lets say a single tree absorbs 5 particles of carbon dioxide, but a square meter of native grass absorbs 20. If a farmer uproots 50 square meters (which was absorbing 1000 particles of CO2 in total) of native grass to plant 100 trees (which will absorb 500 particles of CO2 in total), then that has hastened global warming. So, yes, planting trees where native grass would be growing is harmful in this case
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.
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.
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.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
57 comments
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.
I would have gotten this wrong because I didn't know what hasten meant lol
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.
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!
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)
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.
@sylviacassidy agreed
Am I correct in assuming that answer choice D would still be the right answer choice if it said few instead of some?
@AidenHampton Yes, it would still be correct. No matter how weak the AC is, for as long as it is necessary, it's correct.
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.
@SoniaKulkarni its not A
should I just be focusing on the argument itself rather than also paying attention to context?
@MyaPapaya For the most part, id say so. Between the premises and the conclusion is where you're going to find the gap/assumptions in the argument that'll often lead you to the necessary assumption. But its still important to understand the context and its relationship to the rest of the argument to make sure you dont overlook any important details.
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?
No, because this contradicts the premise
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?
Because native grasses, which are more effective at absorbing carbon, are being replaced by trees (which are less effective at absorbing carbon) because of the government incentive, which is what answer D implies.
Lets say a single tree absorbs 5 particles of carbon dioxide, but a square meter of native grass absorbs 20. If a farmer uproots 50 square meters (which was absorbing 1000 particles of CO2 in total) of native grass to plant 100 trees (which will absorb 500 particles of CO2 in total), then that has hastened global warming. So, yes, planting trees where native grass would be growing is harmful in this case
But where exactly does in the stim say trees are taking the place of native grass this threw me #help
Never mind got it 😩. I instinctively just wanted more out of the statement, silly me.
been feeling good this whole time and now NA is so royally kicking my ass
oh my god same. I am crashing and burning.
why is this one optional?
#feedback I also do not understand the point of optional lessons. Just make them lessons lol
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.
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.
finally got one right HAHA
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."
#feedback It would be great to be able to see the difficulty level of the questions being used during the lesson.
If you click answers below the video you can see the difficulty level.
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.
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.