Per Kevin’s response and the video explanation, a qualifier refers to something that limits the scope of the conclusion. So if it had said “fortifying salt with iron could help reduce anemia, provided people eat enough salt to consume significant amounts of iron”, that would be a qualifying statement.
As shorthand I think of qualifying statements as “as long as…” statements.
“Going for a walk can help reduce the risk of heart disease” - statement.
“As long as the walk lasts more than 30 minutes” - qualifier.
In LSAT logical reasoning, "qualifies" means to limit, restrict, or modify a claim, making it less absolute or sweeping. A qualified statement adds caveats or exceptions, reducing its scope from a broad generalisation to a more precise, narrow statement, often using words like "sometimes" or "often".
I think we all hesitated when we saw "qualifies the conclusion" lol had to put on the JY thinking cap, "Does it Qualify it though?". The LSAT writer was like, "Okay, I'll give straightforward answers BUTTTT I will mess you up with this word" lol
What!!??? How does "qualifies" in this context mean "to put boundaries"? I thought qualifying the conclusion would mean to strengthen it....? I feel so confused omg
#help I interpreted "qualify the argument" as something that would make the argument valid or logical (EX: My high LSAT score qualifies me to go to my dream school). IF this definition was used then D would be correct because it MOST accurately describes the purpose of the sentence. However this is not what the test writers meant by "qualify" and I have never seen qualified defined as "to limit the strength or scope of something". Is there some sort of list with LSAT vocabulary that I can review to ensure this doesn't happen again?
However, I still got the question right by assuming that the premises usually do not fully validate the conclusion on the LSAT. Also, in this type of question we don't need to evaluate how strongly the conclusion is supported and need to just use premise as a claim that lends support to the conclusion.
Dunno if this is a correct way of thinking of it but thought I'd share
that's all true. Looking back at this I can see how B would still be the right choice even if they meant qualify to be as I interpreted it. Precisely why, you said. It does not fully validate the conclusion.
Does anyone know if the percentages under the answers are for the test takers on this question or is it the percentages of the people doing the you try in this course?
I notice I commonly pick the SECOND most popular answer choice a lot. Not just for this section but for many other LR question type sections too. :((((((((
Oof, I'm struggling. I was between B, D, and E. Part of my confusion was the term "qualifies", which I interpreted as "shows why the conclusion is correct". Note to future self: in an argument, something that "qualifies" something else means that it adds conditions or exceptions.
I understand why b is correct, i just think that e is an attractive wrong answer choice and don't think the explanation as to why that is is revelatory; I was wondering if e would be incorrect because in comparison to b, b is more correct, or if e is entirely wrong because it does not qualify as a principle?
If you consider the term principle, principle would be an underlying idea that applies to the situation. This was a directly stated claim about the consumption of the new iron-fortified salt. That's the way I thought of it, and I believe you are right to assume that it does not qualify as a principle.
54 comments
Did anyone else not know the definition of qualified? I thought my context clues were onto something..
That definitely surprised me too lol
Can we get an answer to what this means? I was also surprised when I saw it.
Per Kevin’s response and the video explanation, a qualifier refers to something that limits the scope of the conclusion. So if it had said “fortifying salt with iron could help reduce anemia, provided people eat enough salt to consume significant amounts of iron”, that would be a qualifying statement.
As shorthand I think of qualifying statements as “as long as…” statements.
“Going for a walk can help reduce the risk of heart disease” - statement.
“As long as the walk lasts more than 30 minutes” - qualifier.
It means to limit the scope or strength of a particular statement.
"I go to the gym everyday. Well, except on holidays." The second statement qualifies the first.
getting this wrong and seeing 135 as the median... might need to cancel this test fr
In LSAT logical reasoning, "qualifies" means to limit, restrict, or modify a claim, making it less absolute or sweeping. A qualified statement adds caveats or exceptions, reducing its scope from a broad generalisation to a more precise, narrow statement, often using words like "sometimes" or "often".
@lsatjasg Thank you!
Nice. Wish they would include some 4 or 5 stars though. These 2 stars give me false hope.
When I finally take this test, I think I'm gonna read every sentence with a patented JY "Okayyyy?"
me: wtf does qualify the argument mean...
me after the explanation: :0
I think we all hesitated when we saw "qualifies the conclusion" lol had to put on the JY thinking cap, "Does it Qualify it though?". The LSAT writer was like, "Okay, I'll give straightforward answers BUTTTT I will mess you up with this word" lol
This was me, I am like what does that even mean... (lucky since I did not understand it I picked the right answer lol)
In this case, to "qualify" would mean to walk back the strength of the conclusion a bit. Try Googling 'to qualify a statement.'
I find that the easiest way to think of "qualify" is to condition or set limits on the argument (more straightforward way of saying "to walk back")
this seemed too easy... i thought i was getting tricked lol
"qualifies" - No idea what this means, I see others try to explain it, but my head cant translate make it make sense.
I keep doubting myself omg I just need to go with my initial answers...
Damn, i've gotten the last 5 in a row of these incorrect. If anyone has some tips that'd be greatly appreciated
Fr like send me back to NAs atp
Honestly, you may want to review the first few foundational lessons that focus on identifying premise, conclusion, sub conclusion and major premise.
I agree with this! A huge part of understanding these questions, from what I have noticed, is understanding the parts of an argument.
Got it right in 44 seconds, lets go!!!!!
I chose B then remembered this is the LSAT and thought that "Qualifies" would actually be right bhahah
same same :|
What!!??? How does "qualifies" in this context mean "to put boundaries"? I thought qualifying the conclusion would mean to strengthen it....? I feel so confused omg
To participate in the statewide race, you must qualify as one of the top 10 winners in your county's race.
Thus, if you are in the top 10, then you will be able to participate in the statewide race.
one of those suspiciously easy questions .....
#help I interpreted "qualify the argument" as something that would make the argument valid or logical (EX: My high LSAT score qualifies me to go to my dream school). IF this definition was used then D would be correct because it MOST accurately describes the purpose of the sentence. However this is not what the test writers meant by "qualify" and I have never seen qualified defined as "to limit the strength or scope of something". Is there some sort of list with LSAT vocabulary that I can review to ensure this doesn't happen again?
I interpreted qualify the same way as you :/
However, I still got the question right by assuming that the premises usually do not fully validate the conclusion on the LSAT. Also, in this type of question we don't need to evaluate how strongly the conclusion is supported and need to just use premise as a claim that lends support to the conclusion.
Dunno if this is a correct way of thinking of it but thought I'd share
that's all true. Looking back at this I can see how B would still be the right choice even if they meant qualify to be as I interpreted it. Precisely why, you said. It does not fully validate the conclusion.
3 in a row right! yay im getting it
finally......
I love these so much
this might be the easiest LR question I've ever seen LOL
Fell for D -- so confused but the explanation makes sense
Does anyone know if the percentages under the answers are for the test takers on this question or is it the percentages of the people doing the you try in this course?
I hope it is the test takers lol
I think its in general for 7sage users. I assume that bc the "right" answers are always seen as chosen around 90%+ even on the super hard questions.
It looks like people who pick the wrong answer may redo the question again and pick the right which could affect the stats.
It is based on practice tests I believe
I notice I commonly pick the SECOND most popular answer choice a lot. Not just for this section but for many other LR question type sections too. :((((((((
Oof, I'm struggling. I was between B, D, and E. Part of my confusion was the term "qualifies", which I interpreted as "shows why the conclusion is correct". Note to future self: in an argument, something that "qualifies" something else means that it adds conditions or exceptions.
I understand why b is correct, i just think that e is an attractive wrong answer choice and don't think the explanation as to why that is is revelatory; I was wondering if e would be incorrect because in comparison to b, b is more correct, or if e is entirely wrong because it does not qualify as a principle?
If you consider the term principle, principle would be an underlying idea that applies to the situation. This was a directly stated claim about the consumption of the new iron-fortified salt. That's the way I thought of it, and I believe you are right to assume that it does not qualify as a principle.
Was so confused because I thought B and D meant the same thing!