I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
They are different because A says the argument “presumes” something. B says the argument “ignores” something. If the argument had presumed that smaller fish are more susceptible than larger fish, we should be able to locate where in the argument that is addressed, but we can’t. Thus, A isn’t accurately describing anything going on in the argument. However, B does accurately describe that the argument ignored effects on smaller fish in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems. Hope that helps!
@manahilayoob76 The argument definitely overlooks algae's effects in larger bodies of water as only 1 pond is discussed, failing to consider any larger water bodies in its stated text. However, we have no evidence that the resident presumes that smaller fish are more susceptible; they could actually think that larger fish are more susceptible but just aren't talking about them in this specific argument. Failing to consider something involves leaving it out of the argument while presuming is an actual assumption that is made, furthering a point in the argument.
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
wouldn't B be descriptively inaccurate because it concerns itself with the matters of larger bodies of water, while the stimulus clearly dictates "this pond?"
The specifics in language always have me over thinking. I stared at this question for 7 minutes, finally the correct answer emerged. But my goodness, she was hiding in the weeds for a good long while!
Think of it this way: for weakening questions, you're looking for the flaw hiding somewhere in the answer choices. For flaw questions, the flaw is already in the stimulus, you just need to be able to pick it out and restate what that flaw is in the answers!
In Flaw questions you'll read an argument that contains a reasoning flaw. Your job would be to find an answer that describes that flaw accurately (in-line with stimulus), and is the ACTUAL flaw of the argument.
Weakening Questions you'll be tasked with picking an answer choice that functionally weakens the support structure of the argument.
Can anyone provide a clear distinction between a flaw and weakening question. I feel like its mentioned and loosely provided but not clear enough #feedback.
Flaw questions ask you to identify a flaw in the reasoning of the argument. So HOW the argument is defective.
Weaken questions ask you to undermine the argument by finding a new piece of information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises.
I don't think so because the question is not concerned with the degree of susceptibility. We are asking if the algae harms them period, or if there is another explanation for the phenomenon. So the question can be eliminated already because of that, but also because we aren't talking about large fish at all; we are wondering how/if the small fish deaths and overabundant algae are correlated, so we can disregard the comparison against large fish. The first half of this explanation also explains why B is wrong and then the second half explains how C is wrong. At least that's how I understand it, hope this helps!
presumes, without providing justification, that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish.
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.
55 comments
thought this was a weaken q lol
I knew the answer was D but then I second guessed myself. Then seeing the difficulty drained me LMAO
i got this one right, but this was not a level one difficulty lol
I highly suggest those who got this right still watch the explanation video because he explains in detail the verbs at the beginning of the answer choices and how to apply them to the stimulus.
@Ave_happ22 you're so right! thanks
Took me 30 seconds :D
Sees difficulty >:(
I got this right, but kinda surprised it was listed as such an easy question. Definitely required some thinking.
yay first attempt i got it right!
#Feedback can you include an option for us to take these practice questions timed on the new version of the website? I really liked having that option.
How is B descriptively accurate and A isnt?
They are different because A says the argument “presumes” something. B says the argument “ignores” something. If the argument had presumed that smaller fish are more susceptible than larger fish, we should be able to locate where in the argument that is addressed, but we can’t. Thus, A isn’t accurately describing anything going on in the argument. However, B does accurately describe that the argument ignored effects on smaller fish in larger bodies of water with more diverse ecosystems. Hope that helps!
@manahilayoob76 The argument definitely overlooks algae's effects in larger bodies of water as only 1 pond is discussed, failing to consider any larger water bodies in its stated text. However, we have no evidence that the resident presumes that smaller fish are more susceptible; they could actually think that larger fish are more susceptible but just aren't talking about them in this specific argument. Failing to consider something involves leaving it out of the argument while presuming is an actual assumption that is made, furthering a point in the argument.
I fear I was stuck between A and D. I ended up choosing D, but the reason A was attractive to me was because I did think the author "presumes ... that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae than are larger fish"
JY said that there was no mention of larger fish, but I felt like the word "smallER" implied that comparison. Maybe I def overthought it, but, in my head, I asked "smaller than what." And the answer was larger fish (in comparison to the smaller dead fish). You see where I'm going (well I hope you do).
What tipped me over to D, was the "without justification." In my head, I was like I guess the author provided justification (maybe horribly so, but they did)
Can someone tell me why I'm off? Thanks :)
The local resident is only talking about the relationship between small fish in the pond and algae. The resident never brings up a relationship between small fish and large fish which is why A is irrelevant.
D on the other hand talks specifically about the relationship between small fish and algae which is in the right direction.
Flaw questions do not ask you to add information (like maybe something about larger fish) to weaken the argument. Its asking you to describe what is already there that is weak, and there is no mention of larger fish or even a hint about a comparison between small and large fish.
Another way I like to think about it is diagramming out the argument structure.
Premise: algae and dead small fish (corr)
Conclusion: algae -c-> dead small fish (caus)
The whole argument and revolves around algae and dead small fish, and the author's reasoning is concluding causation from a correlation between algae and dead small fish. That's the biggest flaw in the resident's argument. A does not attack this line of reasoning while D does.
I hope this makes sense :)) I used to get caught up in the small details of a stimulus (which are important), but it is more important to understand the stimulus and its reasoning as a whole before delving into smaller details.
@eshakashyap16880 exactly. if the argument said, big and small fish were dying, it wouldn't change the argument. its a change in scope. it isn't getting at the central weakness
I cut down 1 star questions with the power of hatred that I've built up within me from failing 5 star questions
wouldn't B be descriptively inaccurate because it concerns itself with the matters of larger bodies of water, while the stimulus clearly dictates "this pond?"
i got it right, took me 6 minutes tho
still a slay
thanks so much! i hope everything is going well with your studies!! Best of luckkk
"Look mom, no handles," he says, while riding a quadycle with two different sets of training wheels
this is so funny and accurate LMAOOO
BANGGGG
The specifics in language always have me over thinking. I stared at this question for 7 minutes, finally the correct answer emerged. But my goodness, she was hiding in the weeds for a good long while!
How could someone do this in 49 secs? I was just perfectly primed for this question with the last two lessons and I still went over 1 min.
I'm going to crash out
i got it right but im still not understanding the difference between flaw and weakening. #help
Think of it this way: for weakening questions, you're looking for the flaw hiding somewhere in the answer choices. For flaw questions, the flaw is already in the stimulus, you just need to be able to pick it out and restate what that flaw is in the answers!
same ugghhh
In Flaw questions you'll read an argument that contains a reasoning flaw. Your job would be to find an answer that describes that flaw accurately (in-line with stimulus), and is the ACTUAL flaw of the argument.
Weakening Questions you'll be tasked with picking an answer choice that functionally weakens the support structure of the argument.
@celinefawaz3255 this is a great way to put it
Yay! I do not even care that it was a 1 star and 98% of us got it correct. Just happy to be apart of the 98%.
yay!
Can anyone provide a clear distinction between a flaw and weakening question. I feel like its mentioned and loosely provided but not clear enough #feedback.
Flaw questions ask you to identify a flaw in the reasoning of the argument. So HOW the argument is defective.
Weaken questions ask you to undermine the argument by finding a new piece of information that makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the premises.
Hope this helps :)
Thank you!
I love when I spend 2 minutes overthinking a 1/5 difficulty question
girl mine was 5 hahha
would A be the stronger AC if the last 4 words were to be erased?
I don't think so because the question is not concerned with the degree of susceptibility. We are asking if the algae harms them period, or if there is another explanation for the phenomenon. So the question can be eliminated already because of that, but also because we aren't talking about large fish at all; we are wondering how/if the small fish deaths and overabundant algae are correlated, so we can disregard the comparison against large fish. The first half of this explanation also explains why B is wrong and then the second half explains how C is wrong. At least that's how I understand it, hope this helps!
presumes, without providing justification, that smaller fish are somehow more susceptible to harm as a result of overabundant algae
than are larger fish.You can kind of think about it like a correlation:
they noticed that seeing small dead fish is positively correlated (+corr) with large amounts of algae
How do we deal with +correlation? 4 options
1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B
4. C causes A and D causes B, and A and B are only coincidentally correlated.
How does this apply?
large amounts of algae cause small fish to die - this is choice 2.
The argument doesn't address choices 1,2, or 4, thus this is a flaw of the argument.
LOWEST DIFFICULTY??!! what???
Was looking for someone else with this thought lol.