These are odd, they're very easy to hunt for until I actually read the answers. I know which part of the argument they are, but the answers are often written so oddly that choosing the right one takes longer than it should.
So it is a good idea to believe that every time there is a questions (rhetorical) and a quick answer after that, that would be the conclusion. I read it as "The position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety." was the conclusion because it is (for lack of better terms) taking a stance and the following sentences were the premise. Am very far off on this? #help
I almost saw this as a conclusion. I guess the language sort of made it feel like a sub-conclusion, or a rephrasing of the conclusion. Ultimately, I did choose the correct answer but I'm happy that now I can learn better sentence parsing!
I don't know why but 3 star difficulty questions seem to be my 5 star difficulty questions. I struggle so much with them and then 5 star questions seem less intense somehow
I chose E but struggled with C for 10 or so seconds, because I didn't scrutinize C beyond the "causal mechanism" part. It seems that the answer choices often refer to other sentences in the passage, I need to make sure to identify whether those track correctly as well.
@Gabi "it probably does" is the conclusion. there can only be one conclusion and if a statement lends support, then it is automatically not a conclusion. "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly," supports the idea that "it probably does (position of a car drivers seat impacts driver safety)"
@Gabi I thought the same until I took the claim and the end of the stimulus and asked "why" and then "Because" and vice versa. It didn't make sense that "x" was therefore "y" (Y being A)
Can anyone dumb this down for me? How is it not the conclusion? Maybe my brain has been fogged from countless LR but everything after "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" is just evidence and facts that support this claim right?
Ex. "The better the visibility from the drivers seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles". This just further proves that Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly..
I thought it was the conclusion, too. I scanned though the rest of the stim trying to find a hint of another conclusion but settled on that one. I dont understand either :(
@ReneBarseghian I saw the "It probably does" as the conclusion. I can't really explain why I did it, but it felt intuitive b/c the statement after that felt like evidence, not a conclusion. For me it went like this:
Driving blah blah blah? (establishes argument)
It probably does (conclusion)
Driving position affects blah blah blah (evidence for argument, argument goes on to explain its position)
@ReneBarseghian "It probably does" is the conclusion after the question in the first sentence was posed. You have to remember "it" is referring to something and that something is the question from the first sentence. As such everything after that conclusion is a premise to support the conclusion. It can't be the conclusion because what support does it garner from the other sentences. I hope this helps.
i dont understand why we cant just look at the statement and decide if its a premise or a conclusion or something else. Like why do we have to translate everything into how the logic works?
honestly if that works for you and you're doing well then don't worry as much about the logic. I agree, I've been getting super confused with the logic part. I'll get the answer correct, but then when I listen to the logic explanation I get lost. Definitely do what's best for you!!
Is it an intermediate conclusion? It seems like the two sentences following the argument part in question support that argument part, making the two sentences premises that support the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
The conclusion here is, "It probably does." Which is a referential to the question proposed directly before it. This is tricky, we haven't encountered this type of conclusion or argument structure before. Blink and you'll miss it.
So if the excerpt was an observation, C would have been correct? But you also mention the excerpt is a rhetorical question, which is a declarative statement/observation, so I still don't see why this wouldn't also be considered a causal mechanism for an observed phenomenon.
66 comments
i think i got a little too cocky
me too, rhetorical question threw me off lol
I went too fast on this one and mixed up premise and conclusion
This is why it is very important to be able to quickly identify the premise and conclusion within the stimulus
I'm a literal LSAT god
I'm feeling confident so far. Stay tuned for when this mindset inevitably changes lol
damnnn I read it quick and immediately thought it was the conclusion
Same....
These are odd, they're very easy to hunt for until I actually read the answers. I know which part of the argument they are, but the answers are often written so oddly that choosing the right one takes longer than it should.
honestly I got this wrong cuz I changed my answer cuz I told myself there's no way the answer is that obvious, due to my trauma with NA.
nooo fell for C :(
NEVER BACK DOWN NEVER WHAT
@hisyellow1219 NEVER GIVE UP
I keep narrowing it down to two answers and choosing the wrong answer !!!!
WE'RE SO BACK BABY
@MRod "It probably does" is the conclusion
So it is a good idea to believe that every time there is a questions (rhetorical) and a quick answer after that, that would be the conclusion. I read it as "The position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety." was the conclusion because it is (for lack of better terms) taking a stance and the following sentences were the premise. Am very far off on this? #help
I'm in the same boat, but I think you've got it.
It's specifically because we are asking about safety, and the statement in question doesn't specifically talk about safety.
I almost saw this as a conclusion. I guess the language sort of made it feel like a sub-conclusion, or a rephrasing of the conclusion. Ultimately, I did choose the correct answer but I'm happy that now I can learn better sentence parsing!
I don't know why but 3 star difficulty questions seem to be my 5 star difficulty questions. I struggle so much with them and then 5 star questions seem less intense somehow
I chose E but struggled with C for 10 or so seconds, because I didn't scrutinize C beyond the "causal mechanism" part. It seems that the answer choices often refer to other sentences in the passage, I need to make sure to identify whether those track correctly as well.
I was thrown off by "probably" because I thought the conclusion couldn't be this weak. :/
wait I thought this was a conclusion
@Gabi "it probably does" is the conclusion. there can only be one conclusion and if a statement lends support, then it is automatically not a conclusion. "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly," supports the idea that "it probably does (position of a car drivers seat impacts driver safety)"
@Gabi I thought the same until I took the claim and the end of the stimulus and asked "why" and then "Because" and vice versa. It didn't make sense that "x" was therefore "y" (Y being A)
I love theseeee, I AM SO BACK.
Can anyone dumb this down for me? How is it not the conclusion? Maybe my brain has been fogged from countless LR but everything after "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly" is just evidence and facts that support this claim right?
Ex. "The better the visibility from the drivers seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles". This just further proves that Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly..
I thought it was the conclusion, too. I scanned though the rest of the stim trying to find a hint of another conclusion but settled on that one. I dont understand either :(
@ReneBarseghian I saw the "It probably does" as the conclusion. I can't really explain why I did it, but it felt intuitive b/c the statement after that felt like evidence, not a conclusion. For me it went like this:
Driving blah blah blah? (establishes argument)
It probably does (conclusion)
Driving position affects blah blah blah (evidence for argument, argument goes on to explain its position)
@ReneBarseghian "It probably does" is the conclusion after the question in the first sentence was posed. You have to remember "it" is referring to something and that something is the question from the first sentence. As such everything after that conclusion is a premise to support the conclusion. It can't be the conclusion because what support does it garner from the other sentences. I hope this helps.
i dont understand why we cant just look at the statement and decide if its a premise or a conclusion or something else. Like why do we have to translate everything into how the logic works?
Agreed, it's as simple as that, and I use this approach.
honestly if that works for you and you're doing well then don't worry as much about the logic. I agree, I've been getting super confused with the logic part. I'll get the answer correct, but then when I listen to the logic explanation I get lost. Definitely do what's best for you!!
Is it an intermediate conclusion? It seems like the two sentences following the argument part in question support that argument part, making the two sentences premises that support the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
The conclusion here is, "It probably does." Which is a referential to the question proposed directly before it. This is tricky, we haven't encountered this type of conclusion or argument structure before. Blink and you'll miss it.
The way I killed NA and SA but these are killing me I DONT GET IT
On the same boat!!
Same here
The last sentence of this lesson is so funny
So if the excerpt was an observation, C would have been correct? But you also mention the excerpt is a rhetorical question, which is a declarative statement/observation, so I still don't see why this wouldn't also be considered a causal mechanism for an observed phenomenon.