I don't understand this at all. His final conclusion did not feel like a causal statement to me as it relates to the premise he had, but a phenomenon/general claim he is describing using the correlation found in the premise as justification. "Healthy dietary behaviour" to me is not the same thing as having "lower fat calories", and so I don't understand how the weakness of the argument is that the author infers a cause from a correlation when the statement in the premise and the statement in the conclusion are not one and the same.
Got it right b/c it def does what A describes. However, I want to know if anybody else spotted this assumption and went into the answer choices looking for it like I did ⬇️⬇️⬇️
That fewer fat calories = healthy dietary behavior.
Or are we supposed to just assume that a diet with fewer fat calories automatically means "healthful dietary behavior"?
It took me 8:28 mins., but I got it right. Upon reading A, I felt that it was correct until I got to D. After POE and narrowing it down A & D, I used piecemeal analysis to eliminate D.
I got this one right solely because I saw 4 answers that just weren't descriptively accurate, but idk if that is a good method to use all the time for this section
He says C is incorrect because it doesn't specifically tie to the argument's content, but technically A doesn't either right? So how does that make sense?
@LSAT1011 It also does not confuse necessary for sufficient. The argument is saying a sufficient conclusion. If you read labels, you have healthy behavior. If it was confusing necessary for sufficient, it would claim to have a healthy diet, it is NECESSARY to read nutrition labels.
for this question I somewhat relied on the first part of the two step method. The question definitely screamed "inferred" to me, more than any of the other choices, which I focused more on rather than the wording I didn't know.
@AngelicaAnzaldi Elicit means "cause" so if I elicit a reaction, I caused or encouraged a reaction.
Illicit typically means illegal", but here it's more accurate to say "falsely." Illicit really does not mean false, but LSAT is fond of using words in a way adjacent to their real meaning to throw you off.
LSAT could have also used "implicitly" because the argument implies a cause where there is only a correlation.
Hell, they'd probably use "explicitly" here too, and argue that the causation/correlation mixup is very obvious (explicit).
Illicit, elicit, implicit, explicit. The LSAT is a funny exam.
If you struggle with retaining/understanding JY's explanations in the video, go back to the question and hit the lightbulb for each answer choices (it'll explain why an answer is correct/wrong)--the explanations are much more simpler and easy to understand
@AminaJensen yea of course. you just have to find the most relevant flaw for the argument. in the previous question about the algae and dead small fish, there was two questions that point out logical flaws, but were not relevant to the question or context.
88 comments
I don't understand this at all. His final conclusion did not feel like a causal statement to me as it relates to the premise he had, but a phenomenon/general claim he is describing using the correlation found in the premise as justification. "Healthy dietary behaviour" to me is not the same thing as having "lower fat calories", and so I don't understand how the weakness of the argument is that the author infers a cause from a correlation when the statement in the premise and the statement in the conclusion are not one and the same.
Got it right b/c it def does what A describes. However, I want to know if anybody else spotted this assumption and went into the answer choices looking for it like I did ⬇️⬇️⬇️
That fewer fat calories = healthy dietary behavior.
Or are we supposed to just assume that a diet with fewer fat calories automatically means "healthful dietary behavior"?
my gut said A. good job my gut!
@SydneyRoper didn't trust mine and got 2 wrong answers instead :D
It took me 8:28 mins., but I got it right. Upon reading A, I felt that it was correct until I got to D. After POE and narrowing it down A & D, I used piecemeal analysis to eliminate D.
something felt so wrong choosing the shorter answer over the longer ones
@no-coconuts lol that strategy almost never works dawg
@TeklaCo what strategy? just an observation.
I got this one right solely because I saw 4 answers that just weren't descriptively accurate, but idk if that is a good method to use all the time for this section
Why is this getting boring
@TeklaCo maybe thats good lol
@Galaw2027! why are these people downvoting just saw this lmaoooo
@TeklaCo no literally same sndjkdnld i was like dang all she said was she's bored. Feels like reddit
Asking myself if the answer choice is descriptively accurate to the argument is really doing wonders in helping me eliminate answer choices
I swear I need to continue to work on my vocabulary
knew it was A but picked E anyway......rip
He says C is incorrect because it doesn't specifically tie to the argument's content, but technically A doesn't either right? So how does that make sense?
@LSAT1011 It also does not confuse necessary for sufficient. The argument is saying a sufficient conclusion. If you read labels, you have healthy behavior. If it was confusing necessary for sufficient, it would claim to have a healthy diet, it is NECESSARY to read nutrition labels.
i keep getting tricked on these D:
Spent 80% of my time trying to remember what illicitly means
@MilesHartung The amount of words I google during blind review is astonishing
Wow i used the same percentages in my example as he did. we are connected
Somehow I am doing much better with these than with weaken questions like how does that even happen
girl wtf
for this question I somewhat relied on the first part of the two step method. The question definitely screamed "inferred" to me, more than any of the other choices, which I focused more on rather than the wording I didn't know.
how the fuck would I know what the word illicit means. Like how is it different from elicit
@AngelicaAnzaldi Elicit means "cause" so if I elicit a reaction, I caused or encouraged a reaction.
Illicit typically means illegal", but here it's more accurate to say "falsely." Illicit really does not mean false, but LSAT is fond of using words in a way adjacent to their real meaning to throw you off.
LSAT could have also used "implicitly" because the argument implies a cause where there is only a correlation.
Hell, they'd probably use "explicitly" here too, and argue that the causation/correlation mixup is very obvious (explicit).
Illicit, elicit, implicit, explicit. The LSAT is a funny exam.
If you struggle with retaining/understanding JY's explanations in the video, go back to the question and hit the lightbulb for each answer choices (it'll explain why an answer is correct/wrong)--the explanations are much more simpler and easy to understand
Haven't watched it yet but really don't feel like the explanation video for this question had to be nearly 18 minutes.
@TheSovereign sometimes the vids are over kill. Job security I guess lol
Can there be more than one flaw in an argument?
@AminaJensen yea of course. you just have to find the most relevant flaw for the argument. in the previous question about the algae and dead small fish, there was two questions that point out logical flaws, but were not relevant to the question or context.
My confidence lever - ZERO
guys I’m scared
2/2 on a roll! What helps me is taking my time with these 4 mins but really try to think about it and not rush
these are so hard