I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
The cost-benefit analysis tip in the review SAVED ME on this. If the author's reasoning is cost-benefit analysis, then the author must assume the cost/benefits don't outweigh those of the argument. That doesn't sound very clear without an example, so use this question as the example. The author says that the manufacturing plants would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money, if they invest in the generators that would convert their "free" heat into energy. That means the author is saying the potential to save money on electric bills outweighs the cost of the generators. Answer choice C accomplishes that same idea.
i havent gotten a single on correct in this unit. i am dead. still at 0% understanding of this.
I am negating every AC and pretty much every AC destroys the argument to some extent, can someone help. I have watched multiple YT videos too, none of them are making any sense
I was between B and C, thinking about B, the passage did say "IF," and so did not really assume certainty about the generators doing their 'thing' (converting heat into electricity) , but I do not feel too bad about because I was also considering C.
The explanation says (D) can be fixed by removing the word "primary". That is, it's necessary that at least some steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process. Is this really the case?
Checking with the negation technique, we get "no steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process".
If electricity can't be used for the steel-manufacturing process, would there still be any electric bills for the steel-manufacturing plant? If not, Can the heat-converted electricity be of any other use? If so, would that use necessarily not save any money?
The premise doesn't state that the electric bills of steel-manufacturing plants result from the steel-manufacturing process. It may result from other different process that's part of the plant, and with the electric bills that come with it being reduced, money may be saved.
My biggest issue of confusion here in the correct answer C is that is clearly says that "saving on bills is sufficient", but the conclusion clearly has the "reduce bills/saving aspect" in the necessary condition. Over and over again we are told not to confuse sufficient for necessary but that looks like that is happening here.....
Having read the explanation for why B is wrong, isn't it still an assumption that the the heat wouldn't just be fed, but fed in a way that makes it possible for the generators to convert it into electricity? Like I get that the author's conclusion is conditioned on it being fed into the generators, but that condition doesn't extend all the way to the successful conversion of the heat into electricity. I see that the premise states that these generators convert heat into electricity, but it doesn't state that they can do so regardless of how the heat is supplied. In other words, I get why B would be wrong if it didn't include the "in such a way..." part...but it does...
The fact that I originally chose C but then thought that it was irrelevant to how the money would actually be saved and so I eliminated the answer.... im like getting progressively worse its so disheartening
I thought we're not allowed to go backwards for the correct answer? For C, it starts with the conclusion, but I thought we aren't suppose to go backwards?
2
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!
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.
174 comments
I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
i am the wizard of this question
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
I have been struggling with this question type... But for the most part I have been getting the Blind review correct.
got this wrong but happy i chose the most attractive wrong answer lol
Please, can someone give me a method that does not involve using negation or "must be true" analysis.
No matter what I do, I cannot prove why something is necessary or why negating something undermines the argument.
I've gotten every single question wrong and I don't understand why an answer is right or wrong.
It honnestly feels more like this is just a "guess and go" question, because there is really no method or strategy for solving this.
#help
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
Wow, I'm starting to get this finally
damn I really thought is was B
Lol I feel strawmanned. Who else didn't just pick B because of seeing "at least some" ?
bruh
how am i suppose to know the assumption would be the cost of purchasing when the passage didn't even talk about that man come on.
i wanna cry
The cost-benefit analysis tip in the review SAVED ME on this. If the author's reasoning is cost-benefit analysis, then the author must assume the cost/benefits don't outweigh those of the argument. That doesn't sound very clear without an example, so use this question as the example. The author says that the manufacturing plants would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money, if they invest in the generators that would convert their "free" heat into energy. That means the author is saying the potential to save money on electric bills outweighs the cost of the generators. Answer choice C accomplishes that same idea.
i havent gotten a single on correct in this unit. i am dead. still at 0% understanding of this.
I am negating every AC and pretty much every AC destroys the argument to some extent, can someone help. I have watched multiple YT videos too, none of them are making any sense
I was between B and C, thinking about B, the passage did say "IF," and so did not really assume certainty about the generators doing their 'thing' (converting heat into electricity) , but I do not feel too bad about because I was also considering C.
The explanation says (D) can be fixed by removing the word "primary". That is, it's necessary that at least some steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process. Is this really the case?
Checking with the negation technique, we get "no steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process".
If electricity can't be used for the steel-manufacturing process, would there still be any electric bills for the steel-manufacturing plant? If not, Can the heat-converted electricity be of any other use? If so, would that use necessarily not save any money?
The premise doesn't state that the electric bills of steel-manufacturing plants result from the steel-manufacturing process. It may result from other different process that's part of the plant, and with the electric bills that come with it being reduced, money may be saved.
My biggest issue of confusion here in the correct answer C is that is clearly says that "saving on bills is sufficient", but the conclusion clearly has the "reduce bills/saving aspect" in the necessary condition. Over and over again we are told not to confuse sufficient for necessary but that looks like that is happening here.....
Having read the explanation for why B is wrong, isn't it still an assumption that the the heat wouldn't just be fed, but fed in a way that makes it possible for the generators to convert it into electricity? Like I get that the author's conclusion is conditioned on it being fed into the generators, but that condition doesn't extend all the way to the successful conversion of the heat into electricity. I see that the premise states that these generators convert heat into electricity, but it doesn't state that they can do so regardless of how the heat is supplied. In other words, I get why B would be wrong if it didn't include the "in such a way..." part...but it does...
FIRST ONE RIGHT IN THIS UNIT??!!! Not sure why i can get high difficultly right but easier questions wrong ...
I missed that "if". oops
The fact that I originally chose C but then thought that it was irrelevant to how the money would actually be saved and so I eliminated the answer.... im like getting progressively worse its so disheartening
I thought we're not allowed to go backwards for the correct answer? For C, it starts with the conclusion, but I thought we aren't suppose to go backwards?