Why should you consider other factors, such as the cost of the generator? In many LSAT questions, we’re taught not to overthink and to trust that all the information we need is provided in the stimulus. I didn’t think the cost of the generator was relevant because it seemed outside the bounds of where my focus should be
I agree. I got this question wrong first, but I realized that in typical 'NA' LSAT questions, negation should come before knowledge boundaries.. So here, conclusion is 'We can save money by T generators' and Negated C kicks this conclusion like 'No. You cannot save money by T generators in the end'.
@StupidName Yes, and especially because it is conditional, my understanding is that this was this was a hypothetical with this potential technology could save money on electric bills. Very frustrating. I was not even attracted to the other answers and picked up on the flaws in both B and D but C appeared irrelevant.
Yeah, I picked it but taking a second in BR made me realize that the argument's support structure precluded answer choice B's necessity (because the argument couched itself in so many layers of hypotheticals).
Even though B seems to make sense when you apply the negation rule, the fact that the argument says "IF the plants could do this" already precludes it.
What helped me get it right in BR was applying the same negation rule.
If it's not true that the amount these plants would save on their electric bills would offset the cost of installing the generators in the first place, the argument falls apart.
I've been eating it on most of this section so far but it's starting to make sense. Asking myself "does the author have to agree with this?" has been huge for me getting more of these correct. We can do this!
Why is it necessary that the steel-manufacturing plant buys the generators? We have no indication in the stimulus to make this assumption. On top of that, even if it doesn't offset the initial cost of purchasing and installing the generators, it can still offset it in the long run?
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
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
@MRod Honestly, NA questions are hard because we have been so used to doing sufficient questions that answers just feel odd.
Whenever I approach these questions, I keep in mind two things:
Is there absolutely any way I can simplify this, and still have it make sense? For answer choice B, the phrase "using current technology" stuck out - as is said, the conclusion is an if-then statement, so why is it ABSOLUTELY necessary? Would removing "current technology" change the answer's relationship to the stimulus? Current technology doesn't have a bearing on the if-then relationship within the argument's conclusion, and so it could be dropped. If you can simplify further, then the answer choice is too strong to be correct
Of course, negation. If it's not true, what happens?
I would recommend just drilling NA questions. They're absolute bitches of a question type that just take grinding to get through. Especially coming off SA questions, it take a lot of getting used to, with which I am struggling too.
I eliminated B in large part because why does it matter if its possible to do it or not? I feel like that answer could be inserted for almost any question where yeah of course something HAS to be legitimately possible to have happen. But that's too shallow of an answer to require picking every time if this question deemed it correct. Plus conclusion was talking about costs and not whether its possible to do it, so that's why I picked C as well as it talked about the costs.
Thanks, that's really helpful. I got tripped up and picked B because
I used the negation trick and thought "well if it ISN'T possible, then the conclusion can't be true!" but your comment made me realize that even if it was impossible to actually do, it still doesn't mean that the author is wrong in stating that it would reduce costs and save money, because that could be true theoretically and maybe with technology one day??
Every time I get an answer wrong, I go back and read the stimulus and realize I interpreted 1 word or 1 sentence in my head into meaning something else and it kills me. because if I just read it right the first time, I would've clearly gotten the right answer.
Finally am getting them right! To all the people who commented saying to negate the possible answer choices in order to find the correct one, I owe you all a big kiss on the mouth
The stimulus mainly says that they could save money, that's the big focus. The correct answer C is saying that money saved on electric bills could cover the cost of implementing this practice, thus saving money. If you negate that answer to no, it is not the case that the money saved on electric bills could cover the cost, then the argument falls apart since they would not be saving money by implementing it, they would be losing money. As JY said, it's not a perfect answer but it is the best answer out of the options.
"The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators."
$ saved --> cover cost
/cover cost --> /$ saved
If you're saving money, you're covering the cost. If you can't cover the cost, you're not saving money.
Ok so if I'm understanding you correctly, you could look at like the depend is what 'Makes' or 'Breaks' the persons argument. The 'Make' being the positive side, and stating the foundation of the argument . The 'Break' is the contrapositive, negative, what happens if that foundation was not there, it cannot stand without it.
So by finding the contrapositive, the required foundation is flushed out easier.
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
@Julietb07 the LSAT truly humbles you. I felt so disheartened because my brain doesn’t work the answers out how the LSAT is explained, not even close. I kept failing drills despite studying hundreds of hours, I got 90% on some drills, I was super excited and now I feel like I’m going backwards too. I still spend 15-20 hours a week studying. It feels so frustrating sometimes! The study and practice WILL pay off! We just gotta keep at it! 🩵
I got this wrong, and fell for trap answer choice D because in my head when the conclusion spoke about saving money I thought it was a referential phrase to saving money on the electricity bills.
203 comments
Really thought I ate clocking B.
hahaha same
I got a bone to pick with these lsat writers
So is this the point in the curriculum when I start doubting my life?
Why should you consider other factors, such as the cost of the generator? In many LSAT questions, we’re taught not to overthink and to trust that all the information we need is provided in the stimulus. I didn’t think the cost of the generator was relevant because it seemed outside the bounds of where my focus should be
What helped me with this, is that if you negate C, then the conclusion would not work. There would be no saving money here.
I agree. I got this question wrong first, but I realized that in typical 'NA' LSAT questions, negation should come before knowledge boundaries.. So here, conclusion is 'We can save money by T generators' and Negated C kicks this conclusion like 'No. You cannot save money by T generators in the end'.
I think I may need brain replacement at this point will you excuse me now🙂🚶🏼♀️➡️🚶🏼♀️➡️🚶🏼♀️➡️
level 5 one after the other again and again is outrageously inconceivable
@ldp FOR REAL, like wtf why are they trying to tank my accuracy percentage and ruin my motivation????
Did anyone else think C was wrong because they thought the only relevant thing was the amount of money saved on the electric bill itself?
@StupidName same but I think the "thereby saving money" clause wants us to take into account the other factors. Horrendous question tbh
@StupidName Yes, and especially because it is conditional, my understanding is that this was this was a hypothetical with this potential technology could save money on electric bills. Very frustrating. I was not even attracted to the other answers and picked up on the flaws in both B and D but C appeared irrelevant.
Aaaaaand there I go again with the faceplant. I think I just tried focusing in on the wrong part of the argument.
Bro me too. I picked B so fast and fell for the trap lol
Yeah, I picked it but taking a second in BR made me realize that the argument's support structure precluded answer choice B's necessity (because the argument couched itself in so many layers of hypotheticals).
Even though B seems to make sense when you apply the negation rule, the fact that the argument says "IF the plants could do this" already precludes it.
What helped me get it right in BR was applying the same negation rule.
If it's not true that the amount these plants would save on their electric bills would offset the cost of installing the generators in the first place, the argument falls apart.
I've been eating it on most of this section so far but it's starting to make sense. Asking myself "does the author have to agree with this?" has been huge for me getting more of these correct. We can do this!
I ate beast mode slayed popped off ran up cooked this question ngl
Why is it necessary that the steel-manufacturing plant buys the generators? We have no indication in the stimulus to make this assumption. On top of that, even if it doesn't offset the initial cost of purchasing and installing the generators, it can still offset it in the long run?
"Try this question again" OK now that I have seen the correct answer don't mind if I dooooo
I'm him
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
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
@MRod Honestly, NA questions are hard because we have been so used to doing sufficient questions that answers just feel odd.
Whenever I approach these questions, I keep in mind two things:
Is there absolutely any way I can simplify this, and still have it make sense? For answer choice B, the phrase "using current technology" stuck out - as is said, the conclusion is an if-then statement, so why is it ABSOLUTELY necessary? Would removing "current technology" change the answer's relationship to the stimulus? Current technology doesn't have a bearing on the if-then relationship within the argument's conclusion, and so it could be dropped. If you can simplify further, then the answer choice is too strong to be correct
Of course, negation. If it's not true, what happens?
I would recommend just drilling NA questions. They're absolute bitches of a question type that just take grinding to get through. Especially coming off SA questions, it take a lot of getting used to, with which I am struggling too.
I eliminated B in large part because why does it matter if its possible to do it or not? I feel like that answer could be inserted for almost any question where yeah of course something HAS to be legitimately possible to have happen. But that's too shallow of an answer to require picking every time if this question deemed it correct. Plus conclusion was talking about costs and not whether its possible to do it, so that's why I picked C as well as it talked about the costs.
Thanks, that's really helpful. I got tripped up and picked B because
I used the negation trick and thought "well if it ISN'T possible, then the conclusion can't be true!" but your comment made me realize that even if it was impossible to actually do, it still doesn't mean that the author is wrong in stating that it would reduce costs and save money, because that could be true theoretically and maybe with technology one day??
Every time I get an answer wrong, I go back and read the stimulus and realize I interpreted 1 word or 1 sentence in my head into meaning something else and it kills me. because if I just read it right the first time, I would've clearly gotten the right answer.
UGH
Finally am getting them right! To all the people who commented saying to negate the possible answer choices in order to find the correct one, I owe you all a big kiss on the mouth
Can you explain how you did the POE using the negate method? I used it but did not do it right I believe.
I did this and I still got it WRONG.
Fr, they saved me
This explanation was wonderful. Did you also negate the other ACs to get to the correct answer?
I will try my best to explain!
The stimulus mainly says that they could save money, that's the big focus. The correct answer C is saying that money saved on electric bills could cover the cost of implementing this practice, thus saving money. If you negate that answer to no, it is not the case that the money saved on electric bills could cover the cost, then the argument falls apart since they would not be saving money by implementing it, they would be losing money. As JY said, it's not a perfect answer but it is the best answer out of the options.
"The amount steel-manufacturing plants would save on their electric bills by feeding heat into thermophotovoltaic generators would be sufficient to cover the cost of purchasing and installing those generators."
$ saved --> cover cost
/cover cost --> /$ saved
If you're saving money, you're covering the cost. If you can't cover the cost, you're not saving money.
I really hope that made some sense!
Ok so if I'm understanding you correctly, you could look at like the depend is what 'Makes' or 'Breaks' the persons argument. The 'Make' being the positive side, and stating the foundation of the argument . The 'Break' is the contrapositive, negative, what happens if that foundation was not there, it cannot stand without it.
So by finding the contrapositive, the required foundation is flushed out easier.
This question and the correct answer makes absolutely no sense to me. It goes against everything I've learned this far.
Maybe I should mail my tears to LSAC so they stop making such evil questions
got this wrong but happy i chose the most attractive wrong answer lol
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 flopped
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
@Julietb07 the LSAT truly humbles you. I felt so disheartened because my brain doesn’t work the answers out how the LSAT is explained, not even close. I kept failing drills despite studying hundreds of hours, I got 90% on some drills, I was super excited and now I feel like I’m going backwards too. I still spend 15-20 hours a week studying. It feels so frustrating sometimes! The study and practice WILL pay off! We just gotta keep at it! 🩵
I got this wrong, and fell for trap answer choice D because in my head when the conclusion spoke about saving money I thought it was a referential phrase to saving money on the electricity bills.
man what EVERRRRRRR >:(