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.
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?
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
77 comments
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
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
"Don't worry about getting it right, just worry about trying"
@aldertree00644 i like this, thank you
#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?
You can always replace "takes for granted "with "assumes"
@lilypawliczak basically "does not consider"
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?
Correct!
ya those are the only possibilities in a correlation relationship
Wondering this too!
@calebamartinez303 what does AC mean?