Maybe it's just me, but I succeeded on these fairly easily by just assuming the weirdest most out of place answer was likely the right answer if I couldn't figure out the assumption right away. LEEEEEEEEROY JEEEENNNKIIINS
Hello! Could someone please break down the potential assumption that could arise from a argument with a cost-benefit analysis reasoning structure?
Would it be that if the author presents X and Y in the premises, then a certain con of let's say, Y, in the premises and proceeds to a prescriptive conclusion of 'one should do X instead' -- the assumption there is that there could be benefits of X that don't outweigh the costs of Y? And so the author just assumed the cost/benefit of a certain option X over Y?
Or is it - let's say we're comparing the cost/benefit of washing hands with hand sanitizer vs soap. The author states in their premises that on the basis of price, washing hands with soap is cheaper than hand sanitizer. Then proceeds to conclude that then, washing hands with soap is the more effective option. Would the assumption there be that the author didn't consider all the costs/benefits of using soap vs hand sanitizer and cannot just conclude which one is better on the basis of price?
Or am I just complicating this and creating new assumptions in my examples lol
1
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.
15 comments
Is anyone else liking NA questions more than SA?
DAMN i suck at these
POV: googling how many NA questions are on the LSAT....
Maybe it's just me, but I succeeded on these fairly easily by just assuming the weirdest most out of place answer was likely the right answer if I couldn't figure out the assumption right away. LEEEEEEEEROY JEEEENNNKIIINS
ive never rage quit a section so bad
These are proving to be my Achilles heel so far. Oooof
Looks like I'm going to have to depend on negation to answer these NA questions.
.
Hello! Could someone please break down the potential assumption that could arise from a argument with a cost-benefit analysis reasoning structure?
Would it be that if the author presents X and Y in the premises, then a certain con of let's say, Y, in the premises and proceeds to a prescriptive conclusion of 'one should do X instead' -- the assumption there is that there could be benefits of X that don't outweigh the costs of Y? And so the author just assumed the cost/benefit of a certain option X over Y?
Or is it - let's say we're comparing the cost/benefit of washing hands with hand sanitizer vs soap. The author states in their premises that on the basis of price, washing hands with soap is cheaper than hand sanitizer. Then proceeds to conclude that then, washing hands with soap is the more effective option. Would the assumption there be that the author didn't consider all the costs/benefits of using soap vs hand sanitizer and cannot just conclude which one is better on the basis of price?
Or am I just complicating this and creating new assumptions in my examples lol