This question type is so frusturating because many of these questions my intuition is right, but I cannot for the life of me explain why they're right, they just feel right in my head. My head is doing some kind of processing but I cannot explain or write out the reasonings. Then there are the ones my inuition don't pick up and I feel lost.
Could anyone share with me how they would diagram answer choice D? I got a little thrown off by the "any" and then the "if", both of which are common sufficient condition indicators.
I saw D was the first one discussed in the video and was sad since I was sure it was A and then was pleasantly surprised to have my reasoning validated :D
Sharing my tactic here: I quickly eliminated D because it says, 'ANY substance... WILL eventually BE DISCOVERED.' However, based on the stimulus, it's not necessary for every substance to be discovered. Even if just some are discovered, the argument could still hold.
#help Can anyone shed some light on why prescriptive or descriptive answer choices are bad in NA questions? Or just which module JY covers this in? I may have missed it.
I kind of struggled to wrap my head around this but I think I figured it out. I had initially predicted the assumption that "hey, what if those other plants don't have the substances?". Despite it being very likely, I did think it was an important assumption that was somewhat necessary for the conclusion. Now my issue was with why does it have to differ from existing meds/substances already discovered? The way I was able to understand this, I looked back at the context. NOTICE that many important types of medicine have already been developed. Our conclusion is that MORE types of medicines will never be developed without the rainforests. SO this means that to develop those important medicines, we MUST discover different substances from those that have already been found to develop meds. This made it easier for me to understand. If negated, it would basically say any new discovered plants would just have the same substances as the existing meds that have already been discovered. This causes the conclusion to crash because NOTE the substances we would find have already made medication. Hope this helps someone
WHEWWWW I see why B, C, D, and E are wrong but my gosh, I cant imagine being able to figure out why A is right -- bc it feels like ther are other (more important) ncessary assumptions than A that are skipped, and like JY pointed out - that can easily seem similar to other ansers.
I think it would be true to say that its not that A is the ONLY necessary assumption for this argument to hold, but that it is ONE of the necessary assumptions the argument needs to hold. The NA that it isnt possible to find these medicines anywhere other than this rain forst still is required, its just that its not an option
Is this accurate?
Either way Im gonna follow JYs advise and starred this question and will come back and try to work it when Im done this unit
#help. Doesn't answer D, if negated, destroy the argument? "No substances of medicinal value contained in rain forest plant species will eventually be discovered if those species are studied." Essentially saying that even if the species are studied, we won't get medicinal value from them. Which basically renders the argument null bc if we don't have the rain forests, who cares because the plants wouldn't have any medicinal value anyways?
I'm not sure if I'm negating the answer wrong or if I'm just misunderstanding it. But I definitely am lost. #help
Why does offering a sub-premise to support an existing premise from the argument strengthen the argument itself, since we already take all existing premises to be true?
An analogy:
Argument 1: Riding motorcycles is dangerous. People should not do dangerous things. Therefore, people should not ride motorcycles.
Argument 2: Riding motorcycles is dangerous because 20% of people who ride them will get into a serious car crash. People should not do dangerous things. Therefore, people should not ride motorcycles.
Aren't both arguments the same strength since they're both valid? Or is argument 2 stronger than argument 1 since it has an additional sub-premise that supports its first premise?
#help I understand why answer choice D does not work. However, if we switched the sufficient and necessary conditions in D, why wouldn't it work? JY said, "Even if we flipped the bridge around, it’s still not necessary. Rather, what is necessary is that if those plant species are not studied, then those substances of medical value will not be discovered." Doesn't that match the necessary condition of the revised D?
I eliminated E because I didn't think it was really an assumption and rather just restated the argument, but are all prescriptive answer choices always wrong on NA questions?
#feedback This is silly feedback, but in the written explanation there is a typo in the line: "I say 'kind of' because even if we flipped th bridge around, it’s still not necessary." ("th" should be "the")
#help The stimulus states that many important types of medicine HAVE BEEN developed. If they have already been developed, why would it mean that if the tropical rain forests aren't preserved, important types of medicine will never be developed?
I didn't assume the plants not yet studied had to differ from the ones already discovered in order to say that medicine will be developed, which was why I got rid of A in the first place. Does it necessarily have to be new plants to be able to claim that medicine has developed?
#Help. I understand why A is correct, and I chose A because it read like a basic assumption we had to make, but I don't know why D is wrong. When I negated D I read it as: these plants could be studied AND substances will not be discovered. I found this confusing; if the whole point of preserving these forests is to allow medicine to be developed from plants, but studying the plants will not lead to the discovery/eventual development of medicine, then why do we need to preserve the forests? I went against D just because I thought well scientists don't have to be the ONLY ones that could discover the substances, it could be someone else.
Dude I genuinely can't believe I got this one right. I went so deep into my mind palace for that
9
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.
79 comments
When he is explaining choice E, would anyone be able to let me know the lesson where he discusses descriptive vs prescriptive words
This question type is so frusturating because many of these questions my intuition is right, but I cannot for the life of me explain why they're right, they just feel right in my head. My head is doing some kind of processing but I cannot explain or write out the reasonings. Then there are the ones my inuition don't pick up and I feel lost.
That answer choice felt like it was a paraphrase from the gist of the argument which i guess makes sense? IDK maybe I am having a stroke LOL
He lowkey made it way more complicated than it needs to be...
Could anyone share with me how they would diagram answer choice D? I got a little thrown off by the "any" and then the "if", both of which are common sufficient condition indicators.
I saw D was the first one discussed in the video and was sad since I was sure it was A and then was pleasantly surprised to have my reasoning validated :D
Thank you for saying "from whom" when referring to plants <
Sharing my tactic here: I quickly eliminated D because it says, 'ANY substance... WILL eventually BE DISCOVERED.' However, based on the stimulus, it's not necessary for every substance to be discovered. Even if just some are discovered, the argument could still hold.
#help Can anyone shed some light on why prescriptive or descriptive answer choices are bad in NA questions? Or just which module JY covers this in? I may have missed it.
I kind of struggled to wrap my head around this but I think I figured it out. I had initially predicted the assumption that "hey, what if those other plants don't have the substances?". Despite it being very likely, I did think it was an important assumption that was somewhat necessary for the conclusion. Now my issue was with why does it have to differ from existing meds/substances already discovered? The way I was able to understand this, I looked back at the context. NOTICE that many important types of medicine have already been developed. Our conclusion is that MORE types of medicines will never be developed without the rainforests. SO this means that to develop those important medicines, we MUST discover different substances from those that have already been found to develop meds. This made it easier for me to understand. If negated, it would basically say any new discovered plants would just have the same substances as the existing meds that have already been discovered. This causes the conclusion to crash because NOTE the substances we would find have already made medication. Hope this helps someone
WHEWWWW I see why B, C, D, and E are wrong but my gosh, I cant imagine being able to figure out why A is right -- bc it feels like ther are other (more important) ncessary assumptions than A that are skipped, and like JY pointed out - that can easily seem similar to other ansers.
I think it would be true to say that its not that A is the ONLY necessary assumption for this argument to hold, but that it is ONE of the necessary assumptions the argument needs to hold. The NA that it isnt possible to find these medicines anywhere other than this rain forst still is required, its just that its not an option
Is this accurate?
Either way Im gonna follow JYs advise and starred this question and will come back and try to work it when Im done this unit
#help. Doesn't answer D, if negated, destroy the argument? "No substances of medicinal value contained in rain forest plant species will eventually be discovered if those species are studied." Essentially saying that even if the species are studied, we won't get medicinal value from them. Which basically renders the argument null bc if we don't have the rain forests, who cares because the plants wouldn't have any medicinal value anyways?
I'm not sure if I'm negating the answer wrong or if I'm just misunderstanding it. But I definitely am lost. #help
When JY gets to your answer choices and says “oooookayyyy…” yk you’re cooked
#help
Why does offering a sub-premise to support an existing premise from the argument strengthen the argument itself, since we already take all existing premises to be true?
An analogy:
Argument 1: Riding motorcycles is dangerous. People should not do dangerous things. Therefore, people should not ride motorcycles.
Argument 2: Riding motorcycles is dangerous because 20% of people who ride them will get into a serious car crash. People should not do dangerous things. Therefore, people should not ride motorcycles.
Aren't both arguments the same strength since they're both valid? Or is argument 2 stronger than argument 1 since it has an additional sub-premise that supports its first premise?
#help I understand why answer choice D does not work. However, if we switched the sufficient and necessary conditions in D, why wouldn't it work? JY said, "Even if we flipped the bridge around, it’s still not necessary. Rather, what is necessary is that if those plant species are not studied, then those substances of medical value will not be discovered." Doesn't that match the necessary condition of the revised D?
Is there a baseline for when we should use/ or eliminate prescriptive answer choices for certain answer types?
Same for descriptive answer choices
When he reads the answer choices, I understand it better LOL
I eliminated E because I didn't think it was really an assumption and rather just restated the argument, but are all prescriptive answer choices always wrong on NA questions?
#feedback This is silly feedback, but in the written explanation there is a typo in the line: "I say 'kind of' because even if we flipped th bridge around, it’s still not necessary." ("th" should be "the")
How would you negate AC A?
i understand it now
#help The stimulus states that many important types of medicine HAVE BEEN developed. If they have already been developed, why would it mean that if the tropical rain forests aren't preserved, important types of medicine will never be developed?
I didn't assume the plants not yet studied had to differ from the ones already discovered in order to say that medicine will be developed, which was why I got rid of A in the first place. Does it necessarily have to be new plants to be able to claim that medicine has developed?
FernGully: The Last Rainforest movie prepared me for people like you...
#Help. I understand why A is correct, and I chose A because it read like a basic assumption we had to make, but I don't know why D is wrong. When I negated D I read it as: these plants could be studied AND substances will not be discovered. I found this confusing; if the whole point of preserving these forests is to allow medicine to be developed from plants, but studying the plants will not lead to the discovery/eventual development of medicine, then why do we need to preserve the forests? I went against D just because I thought well scientists don't have to be the ONLY ones that could discover the substances, it could be someone else.
Dude I genuinely can't believe I got this one right. I went so deep into my mind palace for that