How is the approach for this similar to the previous question about preserving medicine in rainforests, besides the "set" framework (which isn't really helping me)? I want to connect the two because intuitively I feel like there's a similarity in approach, but these questions just haven't fully clicked for me yet. If anyone has grasped the patterns, please #help
I got baited so hard that I still have the hook caught in my mouth. I went with A which is a fantastic choice for a strengthen question, but it is not necessary for the argument to survive. Ah man... I told myself I was not going to select the strengthen answer that is not necessary, but here we are. With pliers. A bloody mess. Trying to remove this hook out of my mouth. Thanks LSAC! Best way to spend a Friday night!
I think I'm finally starting to get these, if you do enough of them and sit there to understand why other answer choices are wrong, you'll automatically start doing the negations in your head as well. I stopped looking for the "weakest" answer or " most supported" because that was confusing me leading me to lose interest and ignore the argument altogether. I just started looking for the answer choice that gives me bare minimum for my argument to be true. If a few answer choices give you bare minimum... make sure they all include the key words or phrases you need to connect your prem to your conclusion. If the arg was a comparison for example, then where is the hole between the compared items, then you can generally make a prediction of that gap the LSAT writers will pick on which might even take it a step further and be the bare minimum of that prediction. But I've noticed most answer choices you can eliminate because they aren't resembling the key phrases I need to fill that gap.
I have never been more frustrated with the LSAT and LR than these last two sections (SA and NA). I feel like i cannot get anything right no matter how much time I spend on it and I'm losing motivation
I've been really struggling with NA questions, and this is one of those that is a good example of why I struggle. I was down to A and D, and ultimately switched to A last second. There was another question earlier where the correct answer was similar to A where it was a NA that no other thing will happen in the future in order for the argument to be true and I think that swayed me. In moments like this, I don't know how to tell one is better than the other.
I find that I am doing significantly better on NA than SA. Is there a particular reason or phenomenon for this, or was I just having an off week last week? Is it common for students to struggle more with one assumption type v. another?
hey.. so how is it possible im getting pretty much every NA question wrong. i feel like I'm doing somersaults and using every possible tactic we've used just for the answer I picked to be incredibly wrong. I'm so frustrated
To add onto A: "New technology" is very arbitrary, and part of it seemed to imply that this technology would solve most, if not all the issues- what with the transfer process being expensive and time consuming.
But for all we know, (with the negation) this technology could be barely better than current technology, or shorten the transference time, but cost an obscene amount of money per transfer.
In the end, given these possibilities, this would seem both unnecessary and insufficient.
I’ve been struggling pretty thoroughly with these but finding language in the correct answer that matches language in the question is helpful. Sometimes the language is too strong and therefore the answer you think is correct is too specific to be necessary, therefore it is not a necessary assumption.
I was stuck between D and C. Ultimately I chose C since it seemed stronger but in retrospect, I should of remembered this was a necessary assumption. Another thing I could of done to get this immediately right is to negate AC D. which would have made it so crystal clear why it is correct. the negation of some is "none" so negated AC D. is none of the films from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material - clearly this would ruin the whole argument. If there are no Hollywood films in their original material then it CANNOT be true that some of them will not be preserved because there is NONE! So just a tip if you're truly stuck just negate both and pick the negated answer that makes the arguement not work. In this case I didn't know what the negation of "some" was hence why I got this wrong.
Although I have intution that the word "many" in Answer (C) is too strong, I remember one of foundational course said that "many" implies "some." Can someone help me how to reconcile those two ideas?
After the previous lesson on the medicinal value, this question was a nice breeze :))
7
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.
83 comments
How is the approach for this similar to the previous question about preserving medicine in rainforests, besides the "set" framework (which isn't really helping me)? I want to connect the two because intuitively I feel like there's a similarity in approach, but these questions just haven't fully clicked for me yet. If anyone has grasped the patterns, please #help
at least i know ill probably be acing the regular Strengthen questions
we are almost done with this section, and I havent gotten a single answer correct. thanks bye.
I never thought an LSAT question would make me cry, but here we are
I got baited so hard that I still have the hook caught in my mouth. I went with A which is a fantastic choice for a strengthen question, but it is not necessary for the argument to survive. Ah man... I told myself I was not going to select the strengthen answer that is not necessary, but here we are. With pliers. A bloody mess. Trying to remove this hook out of my mouth. Thanks LSAC! Best way to spend a Friday night!
Im gonna fail the LSAT bc of PSA, SA, and NA questions
crashed out, took a 30 minute break, got this question correct.
take a break if you need it guys!
I think I'm finally starting to get these, if you do enough of them and sit there to understand why other answer choices are wrong, you'll automatically start doing the negations in your head as well. I stopped looking for the "weakest" answer or " most supported" because that was confusing me leading me to lose interest and ignore the argument altogether. I just started looking for the answer choice that gives me bare minimum for my argument to be true. If a few answer choices give you bare minimum... make sure they all include the key words or phrases you need to connect your prem to your conclusion. If the arg was a comparison for example, then where is the hole between the compared items, then you can generally make a prediction of that gap the LSAT writers will pick on which might even take it a step further and be the bare minimum of that prediction. But I've noticed most answer choices you can eliminate because they aren't resembling the key phrases I need to fill that gap.
i literally want to cry why am I so bad at NA
I'm confused, how can it be D if the possibility exists that some of those films could exist in another form that's just as deteriorating?
finally the first one I get right
I have never been more frustrated with the LSAT and LR than these last two sections (SA and NA). I feel like i cannot get anything right no matter how much time I spend on it and I'm losing motivation
Out out the last ten question, I got this right in under a minute and all the others wrong 😑
I've been really struggling with NA questions, and this is one of those that is a good example of why I struggle. I was down to A and D, and ultimately switched to A last second. There was another question earlier where the correct answer was similar to A where it was a NA that no other thing will happen in the future in order for the argument to be true and I think that swayed me. In moments like this, I don't know how to tell one is better than the other.
I find that I am doing significantly better on NA than SA. Is there a particular reason or phenomenon for this, or was I just having an off week last week? Is it common for students to struggle more with one assumption type v. another?
Looks like being a film nerd does come in handy sometimes...
hey.. so how is it possible im getting pretty much every NA question wrong. i feel like I'm doing somersaults and using every possible tactic we've used just for the answer I picked to be incredibly wrong. I'm so frustrated
To add onto A: "New technology" is very arbitrary, and part of it seemed to imply that this technology would solve most, if not all the issues- what with the transfer process being expensive and time consuming.
But for all we know, (with the negation) this technology could be barely better than current technology, or shorten the transference time, but cost an obscene amount of money per transfer.
In the end, given these possibilities, this would seem both unnecessary and insufficient.
Every single time in this section I pick the right answer and change it to the trap question because I'm too unsure. Pain
I’ve been struggling pretty thoroughly with these but finding language in the correct answer that matches language in the question is helpful. Sometimes the language is too strong and therefore the answer you think is correct is too specific to be necessary, therefore it is not a necessary assumption.
I am backing down I am giving up
I was stuck between D and C. Ultimately I chose C since it seemed stronger but in retrospect, I should of remembered this was a necessary assumption. Another thing I could of done to get this immediately right is to negate AC D. which would have made it so crystal clear why it is correct. the negation of some is "none" so negated AC D. is none of the films from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material - clearly this would ruin the whole argument. If there are no Hollywood films in their original material then it CANNOT be true that some of them will not be preserved because there is NONE! So just a tip if you're truly stuck just negate both and pick the negated answer that makes the arguement not work. In this case I didn't know what the negation of "some" was hence why I got this wrong.
Although I have intution that the word "many" in Answer (C) is too strong, I remember one of foundational course said that "many" implies "some." Can someone help me how to reconcile those two ideas?
Does anyone have any advice or suggestion when it comes to pick the answers that are irrelevent?? #feedback
After the previous lesson on the medicinal value, this question was a nice breeze :))