In the text summaries, giving alternative phrasing to show how the answer choices could be correct are v useful (e.g., here is an argument that (E) would accurately describe). I often struggle most with understanding the phrasing of the answer choices, so examples are useful - thanks!
I got 10 seconds below the time since I knew it was a conclusion.... and answer A was the only one that states it was a conclusion.
I realize this won't work most of the time, but I have gotten many answers correct in this manner- but is this something I can rely on during the exam?
In the first lesson we talked about identifying the method of reasoning before jumping into the ACs. Here I think the method of reasoning is "Eliminating options or alternatives". I am not sure if it is necessary to do to figure out the right answer but it helps me a lot
If this helps anyone, because I also was like whaaaat, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtain, "intransitive verb: to be generally recognized or established : prevail"
"Those ideas no longer obtain for our generation."
"a greater degree of free expression than usually obtains in film production"
—Roger Manvell
I keep thinking, if law school doesn't work out for me, at least my vocabulary is expanding through this!
I was able to eliminate B because it uses the word "infer". Infer in my mind means a prediction or a guess or ultimately an uncertain assessment. The argument isn't guessing at all. It isn't saying that Phoenix MIGHT get the contract. It is sure that Phoenix will get it. Because of this, AC B is not accurate.
I had it narrowed down to B and the correct answer. To me, I had to read them both a few times and actually weigh them to the argument. A did a better job. There was no ambiguity with it.
This is right, but if you ignore infer and look at the rest of the answer it is still not correct. The answer gets it backwards. The stimulus says that because one thing is NOT happening, then it can conclude that the only other probable explanation will happen. The answer choice (B) says that because this probable event WILL happen, then the only other probable explanation will not happen. The answer choice simply gets it backwards which is why the rest of the answer is incorrect.
Stimulus: Alt 1 will not happen → Alt 2 will happen
Answer B: Alt 1 will happen → Alt 2 will not happen
How would we know where we can't use splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors method?... would it just be where u do not spot a P or C in the ACs?
I also think it's the second because of how the conclusion derives its support from the premise. but idk how we'd know which one with just the first sentence of the stim.
I guess that in the LSAT, we generally assume the inclusive form of "or" which would be the second option.
To put the first sentence into conditionals I think it would be more along the lines of:
Awarded Government contract --> Phoenix or Cartwright
In this case it is saying that if some company is awarded the government contract, it would be sufficient to say that it is either Phoenix or Cartwright.
So for our conclusion triggering /Cartwright would mean that if the government is awarding the contract it would have to be awarded to Phoenix because if we say /Phoenix then we could conclude that nobody was awarded the government contract which can be visualized with the contra:
/Cartwright + /Phoenix --> /awarded government contract
I could be wrong here, but this is what I am seeing. If somebody has more insight into this it I would gladly accept the feedback aswell.
I wanna make sure I am not going crazy with my reasoning for eliminating B. The conclusion of the passage is also regarding what event most likely WILL occur. B states the conclusion is an event will NOT occur. I saw "will not occur" and immediately crossed it out.
AC:B does express a level of certainty that is not expressed in the stim, which is one reason that it can be eliminated. B does not respect that idea that AC and CC were "virtually certain" to be awarded the contract. It leaves some room for uncertainty, though small..
More importantly, the conclusion and premise that B describes do not match the stim. B speaks to an event it is inferring will not happen, whereas the stim is saying that it is "almost inevitable" (still expressing little uncertainty) that AC will be awarded the contract. This is what makes B wrong.
Isn't "only" overly inclusive in answer choice A? that was my pick but I didn't because of only. the stimulus does not use that level of certainity, even after the first event does not occur
from what I can gather, while it does use "only", it is followed by "probable alternative". The info from the stimulus provides us with 2 probable options and out of those, only 1 is left thus how we arrive to A. Again, we can only use what the stimulus provides according to their line of logic. Just my take but hope it helps some!
Given that the stimulus says "virtually certain", 'only' acting as overly inclusive is reasonable. Even if we maintain that it is overly inclusive, given that there might be a 1% chance of a third company getting the contract, the other answers choices are too flimsy and so through the POE and choosing the best answer, we would arrive at this answer choice.
It doesn’t say the only outcome, it says the only PROBABLE outcome. That’s kind of what did it for me, because while there may be other possible outcomes, the two most probable are stated in the stimulus.
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.
38 comments
If A was wrong, I was going to eat my shoes. Still hungry...
In the text summaries, giving alternative phrasing to show how the answer choices could be correct are v useful (e.g., here is an argument that (E) would accurately describe). I often struggle most with understanding the phrasing of the answer choices, so examples are useful - thanks!
Am I doing this right?:
I got 10 seconds below the time since I knew it was a conclusion.... and answer A was the only one that states it was a conclusion.
I realize this won't work most of the time, but I have gotten many answers correct in this manner- but is this something I can rely on during the exam?
@Catpop I think so. I'm in the same boat
In the first lesson we talked about identifying the method of reasoning before jumping into the ACs. Here I think the method of reasoning is "Eliminating options or alternatives". I am not sure if it is necessary to do to figure out the right answer but it helps me a lot
The lesson did a great job of illustrating the previously discussed principle, thanks JY.
i did not read the choices carefully omfg
SUITS MENTIONED RAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
@tommyfernandezwolff991 I was gonna skip this video because the answer seemed relatively easy, but now I have to watch it.
Still irked by the random and weird use of the word 'obtain' a few questions ago
it's clear from your comment on this question that your expectation of satisfaction with that question did not obtain
(didn't for me either, it was archaic as hell)
If this helps anyone, because I also was like whaaaat, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtain, "intransitive verb: to be generally recognized or established : prevail"
"Those ideas no longer obtain for our generation."
"a greater degree of free expression than usually obtains in film production"
—Roger Manvell
I keep thinking, if law school doesn't work out for me, at least my vocabulary is expanding through this!
I agree with you in ways I cannot even begin to express
lmaoooo me too man me too
@evanito_ Haha, same here. I don't think I'll ever forget that word "obtain".
I'm a little lost on this question like is B wrong because it doesn't encapsulate the conclusion?
I was able to eliminate B because it uses the word "infer". Infer in my mind means a prediction or a guess or ultimately an uncertain assessment. The argument isn't guessing at all. It isn't saying that Phoenix MIGHT get the contract. It is sure that Phoenix will get it. Because of this, AC B is not accurate.
I had it narrowed down to B and the correct answer. To me, I had to read them both a few times and actually weigh them to the argument. A did a better job. There was no ambiguity with it.
This is right, but if you ignore infer and look at the rest of the answer it is still not correct. The answer gets it backwards. The stimulus says that because one thing is NOT happening, then it can conclude that the only other probable explanation will happen. The answer choice (B) says that because this probable event WILL happen, then the only other probable explanation will not happen. The answer choice simply gets it backwards which is why the rest of the answer is incorrect.
Stimulus: Alt 1 will not happen → Alt 2 will happen
Answer B: Alt 1 will happen → Alt 2 will not happen
@sarahelizabeth375 B is too strong (not probabilistic) and also goes the wrong way
How would we know where we can't use splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors method?... would it just be where u do not spot a P or C in the ACs?
Yeah if you can't fit the answer choice to the technique, then you can't really use the technique
Splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors definitely helped eliminate answers quicker
wow these MoR questions are the easiest of all, such a relief
I like the method of splitting the conclusion and premise descriptors. That was a very helpful tip for these types of questions.
This stimulus reminded me to log back into my other LSAT prep app (viz., Phoenix Wright: ACE Attorney Trilogy for Android)
If you wanted to make the first sentence a conditional in logic, how would you do it?
phoenix→/cartwright?
or /cartright→phoenix?
I have a feeling it is the second, but can anyone confirm?
pls #help
I also think it's the second because of how the conclusion derives its support from the premise. but idk how we'd know which one with just the first sentence of the stim.
I guess that in the LSAT, we generally assume the inclusive form of "or" which would be the second option.
To put the first sentence into conditionals I think it would be more along the lines of:
Awarded Government contract --> Phoenix or Cartwright
In this case it is saying that if some company is awarded the government contract, it would be sufficient to say that it is either Phoenix or Cartwright.
So for our conclusion triggering /Cartwright would mean that if the government is awarding the contract it would have to be awarded to Phoenix because if we say /Phoenix then we could conclude that nobody was awarded the government contract which can be visualized with the contra:
/Cartwright + /Phoenix --> /awarded government contract
I could be wrong here, but this is what I am seeing. If somebody has more insight into this it I would gladly accept the feedback aswell.
I wanna make sure I am not going crazy with my reasoning for eliminating B. The conclusion of the passage is also regarding what event most likely WILL occur. B states the conclusion is an event will NOT occur. I saw "will not occur" and immediately crossed it out.
AC:B does express a level of certainty that is not expressed in the stim, which is one reason that it can be eliminated. B does not respect that idea that AC and CC were "virtually certain" to be awarded the contract. It leaves some room for uncertainty, though small..
More importantly, the conclusion and premise that B describes do not match the stim. B speaks to an event it is inferring will not happen, whereas the stim is saying that it is "almost inevitable" (still expressing little uncertainty) that AC will be awarded the contract. This is what makes B wrong.
Hope this helps. :)
Isn't "only" overly inclusive in answer choice A? that was my pick but I didn't because of only. the stimulus does not use that level of certainity, even after the first event does not occur
#help
from what I can gather, while it does use "only", it is followed by "probable alternative". The info from the stimulus provides us with 2 probable options and out of those, only 1 is left thus how we arrive to A. Again, we can only use what the stimulus provides according to their line of logic. Just my take but hope it helps some!
Given that the stimulus says "virtually certain", 'only' acting as overly inclusive is reasonable. Even if we maintain that it is overly inclusive, given that there might be a 1% chance of a third company getting the contract, the other answers choices are too flimsy and so through the POE and choosing the best answer, we would arrive at this answer choice.
Hope that helps!
The "only" tripped me up to.
It doesn’t say the only outcome, it says the only PROBABLE outcome. That’s kind of what did it for me, because while there may be other possible outcomes, the two most probable are stated in the stimulus.
Love the Suits reference!!