Got this right on negation. If no films from the earliest year of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material, which if true colllapses the argument. If no early years of Hollywood films exsist in their original material that is unstable and deteriorating nitrate film, then the conclusion does not apply since there is NO films to even have to preserve.
A tip that helped me eliminate A right away is that it doesn't even specifically state that the new technology would be more inexpensive, or efficient. Thus, I reasoned that assuming a new technology was developed, it could just be that this new technology, say, developed a less foul scent for nitrate or Acetate. The new technology might still be expensive, time consuming, etc., making it not necessary at all.
Got it right first time based on working through it in my head but it was between C and D. Blind review I tried to the negate test which had me choosing C. Doing negate test with C, I thought that if many films from earliest Hollywood years had already been transferred to acetate, that would make the premise about not being able to transfer all of them before they deteriorated less relevant.
The explanation for AC C makes no sense to me. This is how I interpret it: To negate “not many x have been transferred to y” would be to remove the not, so it would be “many x have been transferred to y”, but since “many” is logically soft, we treat it like a some relationship. SO, SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
Why does JY's explanation say that "it’s good that there (C) guarantees a “most” intersection." huh??
@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.
As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things
I got this one wrong originally, but recognized my mistake in using the Negation Technique - instead of negating "Some" in answer D as "None"/"No", I negated it as "some are not," and I thought to myself, "Okay, this isn't necessary to the argument, as some films not being in their original (deteriorating) material does not preclude at least one, if not more, films from being in their original material, thus allowing them to not be preserved." BUT, upon reflection, I recognized my oopsie poopsie and thought I would remind folks (& mostly myself...) to remain in tip-top shape re: their negations if they choose to employ the Negation Technique to narrow down correct/incorrect answers, as the negation of "Some" is "None," and the negation of "All" is "Not all/Some are not". Happy assuming, everyone!
I imagine that I'm a baby and this question is the first thing I have ever read. I don't know anything about new tech. Im baby. I guess there are old films bc that's what the argument says. That's all I can think bc im baby. I can pay u in blocks.
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.
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.
101 comments
6 seconds under the time. Yay!
YAYAYA I GOT IT RIGHT!! :)
Got this right on negation. If no films from the earliest year of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material, which if true colllapses the argument. If no early years of Hollywood films exsist in their original material that is unstable and deteriorating nitrate film, then the conclusion does not apply since there is NO films to even have to preserve.
I chose D and then I said fuck C looks promising gg
A tip that helped me eliminate A right away is that it doesn't even specifically state that the new technology would be more inexpensive, or efficient. Thus, I reasoned that assuming a new technology was developed, it could just be that this new technology, say, developed a less foul scent for nitrate or Acetate. The new technology might still be expensive, time consuming, etc., making it not necessary at all.
FUCK
lol literally fell for both A & C
so basically....we question how those hollywood films were thrown in there? and D binds the conclusion to the premise/rest of the context? -_-
Got it right first time based on working through it in my head but it was between C and D. Blind review I tried to the negate test which had me choosing C. Doing negate test with C, I thought that if many films from earliest Hollywood years had already been transferred to acetate, that would make the premise about not being able to transfer all of them before they deteriorated less relevant.
As a film studies student, I said to myself when I saw the stimulus: "If you can't get this right, drop out."
The explanation for AC C makes no sense to me. This is how I interpret it: To negate “not many x have been transferred to y” would be to remove the not, so it would be “many x have been transferred to y”, but since “many” is logically soft, we treat it like a some relationship. SO, SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate.
Why does JY's explanation say that "it’s good that there (C) guarantees a “most” intersection." huh??
#help #helpme #welp
@saulgoodman13 The reason I got rid of C is becasue if the number of films that have been transfered is large or small, it dosen't matter. Because we're talking about ALL those that have yet to be transfered.
As for J.Y, if you can explain why something is wrong in your own terms, don't listen to him. He'll over complicate things
I got this one wrong originally, but recognized my mistake in using the Negation Technique - instead of negating "Some" in answer D as "None"/"No", I negated it as "some are not," and I thought to myself, "Okay, this isn't necessary to the argument, as some films not being in their original (deteriorating) material does not preclude at least one, if not more, films from being in their original material, thus allowing them to not be preserved." BUT, upon reflection, I recognized my oopsie poopsie and thought I would remind folks (& mostly myself...) to remain in tip-top shape re: their negations if they choose to employ the Negation Technique to narrow down correct/incorrect answers, as the negation of "Some" is "None," and the negation of "All" is "Not all/Some are not". Happy assuming, everyone!
I got this one right in 1:02 because I started thinking in supersets and subset and which superset is required for the argument to be true
I got this right in blind review but wow this one had me stumped fr
How i get these right:
I imagine that I'm a baby and this question is the first thing I have ever read. I don't know anything about new tech. Im baby. I guess there are old films bc that's what the argument says. That's all I can think bc im baby. I can pay u in blocks.
@CeciliaBurton1 Yes.
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
@meepmeep I like your duck profile photo 🦆
we are almost done with this section, and I havent gotten a single answer correct. thanks bye.
@legallyhaya I think i got 1 :(
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?
You are correct here. I think, however, that the argument reasonably suggests that there are really only two forms of film.