Now here's a great example of a question where translating abstract stimulus language into concrete and familiar examples is so important to understand the argument and its underlying logic (assumption). Like JY said, LSAT writers intentionally use abstract and overcomplicated language to obscure the logic, and one of the ways in which you can counter that is by simply translating vague principles and descriptions into simple, intuitive, and easily digestible examples that you can then work with. Now that I think of it, it's one of the most valuable LSAT skills in general and I see JY using it all the time when he is dissecting questions in LR.
A. how many mental illnesses being discussed is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument
B. this is nearly a restatement of a premise. nutritional factors is already considered under organic factors
C. yes, because if different cultures determine SIGNIFICANTLY how often or how intense the symptoms manifest themselves, it doesn’t necessarily follow that organic factors MUST be the cause of the global variation
Eliminated B on the basis that I didn't think it was in conflict with the initial conclusion. It actually helps explain why organic factors are not evenly distributed - since culture carries nutritinal variance which in turn affects the organic factors.
so when the question talked about compound in the brain, I immediately thought about iron, or some mineral/vitamin that we need to do brain stuff. that choice made the connection that B supported the conclusion instead of of a flaw more clear.
Ultimately got the question right via POE. But "culture" confused me because couldn't that be viewed as an organic factor contributing to the symptoms?
@MichaelCrout When they say "organic factor" they are mainly referring to physical factors. Culture can be seen more as an intangible social influence, not organic in a biological kind of way.
@MichaelCrout In other contexts yes, this tripped me up too. But the first sentence explains that organic factors are things like defiencies in brain compounds, so I used this context to assume that it was more of a biological context. Also, the passage doesn't mention culture and generally it's best to try to stick to what's explicitly mentioned. Context clues are key!
If while reading the stem, you immediately identify what's wrong with the argument, is it advisable to hunt the answer, and if its lines up exactly with your assumption, choose it and move on?
The video is low priority to watch because you already got it right, it will be marked as high priority to watch if you got it wrong so you understand why, so it is specific to you.
Got it right 25 seconds faster than target but second guessed myself in BR and chose B which is a very attractive answer but it reflects the first sentence pretty well IMO.
Still don't get how cultural differences can significantly affect symptoms of mental illnesses. It's my understanding that culture means language, food, traditions, literature, and etc. But it doesn't explain nor make sense in the frame of the argument.
Or was the word "culture" an overarching term to be politically correct and subtly hint to genetical differences between ethnicities? If that's the case, only then it starts to make sense.
Common symptoms are visual and auditory hallucinations.
In, let's say, America, someone experiencing those symptoms is considered abnormal, or ill, and we apply a clinical lens to it, because culturally, those people are labeled as "crazy". We have a medical diagnosis for that.
Now pretend we are in an indigenous tribe somewhere, and culturally, shamans are a large part of their way of life. It is believed that those shamans see and hear messages from the universe or gods. Culturally, what we consider hallucinations, they are considered a blessing. This person will be respected. Schizophrenia doesn't exist to them. Therefore, the symptoms aren't even symptoms.
The cultural norms between the United States and a remote tribe somewhere are very different, so how someone with auditory and visual hallucinations will be treated will be very different.
Hopefully, this makes some sense. I think this is what they are kind of trying to say, or at least the way I interpreted it. The way this question is worded is very strange.
The strong language in E made me think that the argument was flawed bc it failed to consider alternative hypos or in other words presumed that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena.
can someone clarify why that's wrong. in other words, if mental phenomena (brain deficiencies) was the only reason for the symptoms (physical phenomena) then doesn't that mean we did not consider other alternative hypos?
Great question. It's an incorrect answer because it sets up a necessary framework that just isn't what this argument is doing or saying. Saying X is "only" caused, created, happens bc of Y is just not what this argument is doing. It's asking why it's flawed - and it's bc it fails to consider how the symptoms of mental illnesses present across different cultures, not because mental phenomena (does this mean mental illness?) are only manifestations of physical phenomena.
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.
113 comments
Now here's a great example of a question where translating abstract stimulus language into concrete and familiar examples is so important to understand the argument and its underlying logic (assumption). Like JY said, LSAT writers intentionally use abstract and overcomplicated language to obscure the logic, and one of the ways in which you can counter that is by simply translating vague principles and descriptions into simple, intuitive, and easily digestible examples that you can then work with. Now that I think of it, it's one of the most valuable LSAT skills in general and I see JY using it all the time when he is dissecting questions in LR.
these are difficult :/
Fasting while doing these questions is not the move damn...
@miketrout27 no literally, i had to take a break from studying during fasting
A. how many mental illnesses being discussed is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument
B. this is nearly a restatement of a premise. nutritional factors is already considered under organic factors
C. yes, because if different cultures determine SIGNIFICANTLY how often or how intense the symptoms manifest themselves, it doesn’t necessarily follow that organic factors MUST be the cause of the global variation
D. author doesn’t assume this
E. author doesn’t assume this either
Ok I guess i'm killing these questions
I guess we have to be careful with assume/ presume answer choices.
Eliminated B on the basis that I didn't think it was in conflict with the initial conclusion. It actually helps explain why organic factors are not evenly distributed - since culture carries nutritinal variance which in turn affects the organic factors.
anthro heads rise
I wish there was a dislike button for the explanation video and descriptions.
damn answer choice b was such a good trap...
so when the question talked about compound in the brain, I immediately thought about iron, or some mineral/vitamin that we need to do brain stuff. that choice made the connection that B supported the conclusion instead of of a flaw more clear.
@AlizaGGG same
i do not like these.
4/4 im killing itt
Ultimately got the question right via POE. But "culture" confused me because couldn't that be viewed as an organic factor contributing to the symptoms?
@MichaelCrout When they say "organic factor" they are mainly referring to physical factors. Culture can be seen more as an intangible social influence, not organic in a biological kind of way.
@MichaelCrout In other contexts yes, this tripped me up too. But the first sentence explains that organic factors are things like defiencies in brain compounds, so I used this context to assume that it was more of a biological context. Also, the passage doesn't mention culture and generally it's best to try to stick to what's explicitly mentioned. Context clues are key!
How dependable is the "hunt the answer" strategy?
If while reading the stem, you immediately identify what's wrong with the argument, is it advisable to hunt the answer, and if its lines up exactly with your assumption, choose it and move on?
You Try - Symptoms of Mental Illnesses -
Now that, JY, I have been trying.
Had the write answer and then I second guessed myself brrruhhhhh
I seem always to get questions with low priority right and questions with high priority wrong. Is anyone else experiencing this, and have any tips?
Oh, haha, I was totally misinterpreting what it meant, thanks!
The video is low priority to watch because you already got it right, it will be marked as high priority to watch if you got it wrong so you understand why, so it is specific to you.
Got it right 25 seconds faster than target but second guessed myself in BR and chose B which is a very attractive answer but it reflects the first sentence pretty well IMO.
Please help!
Still don't get how cultural differences can significantly affect symptoms of mental illnesses. It's my understanding that culture means language, food, traditions, literature, and etc. But it doesn't explain nor make sense in the frame of the argument.
Or was the word "culture" an overarching term to be politically correct and subtly hint to genetical differences between ethnicities? If that's the case, only then it starts to make sense.
i thought the same thing
Take schizophrenia as an example-
Common symptoms are visual and auditory hallucinations.
In, let's say, America, someone experiencing those symptoms is considered abnormal, or ill, and we apply a clinical lens to it, because culturally, those people are labeled as "crazy". We have a medical diagnosis for that.
Now pretend we are in an indigenous tribe somewhere, and culturally, shamans are a large part of their way of life. It is believed that those shamans see and hear messages from the universe or gods. Culturally, what we consider hallucinations, they are considered a blessing. This person will be respected. Schizophrenia doesn't exist to them. Therefore, the symptoms aren't even symptoms.
The cultural norms between the United States and a remote tribe somewhere are very different, so how someone with auditory and visual hallucinations will be treated will be very different.
Hopefully, this makes some sense. I think this is what they are kind of trying to say, or at least the way I interpreted it. The way this question is worded is very strange.
Does the causation vs conditional page linked at the bottom still exist im getting a 404 error
Why is it important to see the word 'only' in the stimulus/answer choices? Can someone explain it to me again?
I was over time by 20 seconds! Got it right tho!
I chose C first round and E on BR.
The strong language in E made me think that the argument was flawed bc it failed to consider alternative hypos or in other words presumed that mental phenomena are only manifestations of physical phenomena.
can someone clarify why that's wrong. in other words, if mental phenomena (brain deficiencies) was the only reason for the symptoms (physical phenomena) then doesn't that mean we did not consider other alternative hypos?
Great question. It's an incorrect answer because it sets up a necessary framework that just isn't what this argument is doing or saying. Saying X is "only" caused, created, happens bc of Y is just not what this argument is doing. It's asking why it's flawed - and it's bc it fails to consider how the symptoms of mental illnesses present across different cultures, not because mental phenomena (does this mean mental illness?) are only manifestations of physical phenomena.
dam I was torn between B and C