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.
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
Confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur: Some people read the nutrition labels on food products. The labels contain information about fat calories in the products. Therefore, the people who read labels on food products must be healthier than people who do not read labels.
- The labels containing information on fat calories is necessary to make the argument but not sufficient.
Takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon (this one was trickier and I’m not sure if mine makes too much sense): People who read nutrition labels on food products consume less fat than people who do not read nutrition labels on food products. Since it is not the case that people in both groups purchase similar products based on their purchase history, it must be that reading the labels promotes healthier diets.
- The author wrongly assumes consuming less fat, and therefore having a healthy diet, is either the result of 1) picking food with less fat content 2) reading nutrition labels. Some overlooked alternative explanations would be that people in the former group do purchase similar items at the grocery store, but also eat less takeout on top of the stuff they buy from the store, doing portion control better, etc.
Is it safe to assume that the answer to a flaw question where the stimulus makes a correlation/causation argument is the AC that points out that the causal mechanism is backwards, there's an unconsidered outside factor causing the phenomenon, or there actually isn't a causal relationship at all is the correct answer?
WOW some of these choices were just weird to comprehend - I need to speak to an LSAT writer. How do they even come up with thissssssssssssssssssssssssss?????????? I chose the right answer but C gave me a headache, what is that?
Ugh not sure if its like the later videos in logical reasoning but I simply CANNOT listen to this mans voice anymore (hes an incredible teacher tho no disrespect)!!! Does anyone have tricks to get over this? Its become like nails on a chalkboard for me....
Someone once said in the comments if its a random word, that is the correct answer. This was my first shot trying it (It also sounded like a good answer) and got it correct.
I thought the word "illicitly" in A was too strong of a word choice and chose against it, although that was my 2nd answer choice. C looked too tempting and seemed to line up so I chose that.
for D, I thought that alternative would me two other hypotheses other than the one concluded. I thought this because, so far, we haven't been referring to the hypothesis in the stimulus as an "alternative hypothesis" we've been looking at the other hypotheses as "alternative" ones. Therefore, to fix the stim for it to conform to AC D, I would add and preclude two other hypotheses not one.
Where am I going wrong in this reasoning?
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
65 comments
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
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.
Can there be more than one flaw in an argument?
My confidence lever - ZERO
guys I’m scared
My attempt before I read JY's examples!
Confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur: Some people read the nutrition labels on food products. The labels contain information about fat calories in the products. Therefore, the people who read labels on food products must be healthier than people who do not read labels.
- The labels containing information on fat calories is necessary to make the argument but not sufficient.
Takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon (this one was trickier and I’m not sure if mine makes too much sense): People who read nutrition labels on food products consume less fat than people who do not read nutrition labels on food products. Since it is not the case that people in both groups purchase similar products based on their purchase history, it must be that reading the labels promotes healthier diets.
- The author wrongly assumes consuming less fat, and therefore having a healthy diet, is either the result of 1) picking food with less fat content 2) reading nutrition labels. Some overlooked alternative explanations would be that people in the former group do purchase similar items at the grocery store, but also eat less takeout on top of the stuff they buy from the store, doing portion control better, etc.
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
"Don't worry about getting it right, just worry about trying"
#feedback i dont think this sentence is written correctly: this shows that reading these label labels promotes proportionally less consumption of fat
(i think it repeats label mistakenly)
what does take for granted mean in this context like ignore it?
J.Y. when reviewing a very wrong answer choice: “OH COME ONNN”
Is it safe to assume that the answer to a flaw question where the stimulus makes a correlation/causation argument is the AC that points out that the causal mechanism is backwards, there's an unconsidered outside factor causing the phenomenon, or there actually isn't a causal relationship at all is the correct answer?
WOW some of these choices were just weird to comprehend - I need to speak to an LSAT writer. How do they even come up with thissssssssssssssssssssssssss?????????? I chose the right answer but C gave me a headache, what is that?
Ugh not sure if its like the later videos in logical reasoning but I simply CANNOT listen to this mans voice anymore (hes an incredible teacher tho no disrespect)!!! Does anyone have tricks to get over this? Its become like nails on a chalkboard for me....
"illicitly infers a cause from a correlation"
Someone once said in the comments if its a random word, that is the correct answer. This was my first shot trying it (It also sounded like a good answer) and got it correct.
I didn't know promote was causal language ganggg wya
Would "assumes" or "supposes" be synonymous with "takes for granted" in most cases?
Correlation /= causation thank you statistics in health policy couldn't have done it without you
The alternative example of D being a correct answer does not make sense to me. Could someone please explain? #help
I thought the word "illicitly" in A was too strong of a word choice and chose against it, although that was my 2nd answer choice. C looked too tempting and seemed to line up so I chose that.
for D, I thought that alternative would me two other hypotheses other than the one concluded. I thought this because, so far, we haven't been referring to the hypothesis in the stimulus as an "alternative hypothesis" we've been looking at the other hypotheses as "alternative" ones. Therefore, to fix the stim for it to conform to AC D, I would add and preclude two other hypotheses not one.
Where am I going wrong in this reasoning?