#feedback It is very helpful when the videos are time marked for each answer choice. I've noticed some of the videos are, but some are not. Nonetheless, it is very helpful to students who understood the question but may need clarification on one of the answer choices. Thank you!
This is how I thought of it. I can't really give any explanations for the other wrong answer choices because I just felt like it wasn't close enough to what I came up with; and I probably should fix that mindset. I just felt like all were irrelevant.
Something that has helped me with flaw questions is reminding myself that we are strictly focused on looking at how the premise does not properly support the argument being made. That's been crucial in helping me get rid of the easy wrong answers.
Conclusion: If we can prevent all of this disease, the number of deaths would decrease by half.
Premise: Because the same number of people die from this disease is more than all other causes combined.
When I first did this problem, I was thinking immediately that preventing a disease does not equal dying from it. That was wrong. This time around, I realized that the flaw was that the author equated having a disease is the same as dying from it. But this is something that cannot be absolutely true. What if they have multiple diseases beyond just one, or what if they do things that can kill them anyways?
Let's think of it like this. Person B has stomach cancer and is also an avid smoker. So let's get rid of all stomach cancer (yay!). Sure, Person B no longer has cancer, but they're an avid smoker, and will later die from lung cancer or whatever other effects smoking has. Just because you got rid of the stomach cancer (the disease) does not mean you are guaranteeing that they will not die.
Another example: Person A has a really weak heart but also has pneumonia. If you get rid of pneumonia, Person A could still die, but from their heart giving out.
Hope this helps someone else! This helped me quickly get to C; I just crossed everything else out because it was irrelevant to how the premise is trying to support the argument.
The reason why E is wrong is because even if we concede that there is always a "risk" of iatrogenic disease, the argument is only making its conclusion within a world in which all iatrogenic disease has been prevented. So regardless, no one in this hypothetical world would die from iatrogenic disease anyways.
Our task in this question is to expose a flaw that would weaken the conclusion. So how does considering E to be true do anything to damage the claim that half of all deaths would be prevented? It doesn't.
I thought C is a little too crual and direct before... I should realize that, not all right answer is also right in the real world, now we're in the lawgic world
I feel the same way, but it's honestly so great to have things repeated at you again and again. If you hear something once you'll probably forget it, but if you hear it 100 times, even if you're not paying full attention, it'll stick in your brain
these are soooo hit or miss for me. It either is extremely apparent or I can't see it at all. This one I got in 1 minute, the other I took 10 minutes and got wrong and BR I guessed and got it right. Does anyone have tips? :(
122 comments
@jessverpez me
Was on a roll and now im not lol. #pleaseprayforyagirl
#feedback It is very helpful when the videos are time marked for each answer choice. I've noticed some of the videos are, but some are not. Nonetheless, it is very helpful to students who understood the question but may need clarification on one of the answer choices. Thank you!
I realized this is a glitch. Every time there haven't been time marks I've just refreshed the page, and they're there!
Correct, this video is indeed time marked for me.
time to push the LSAT date down
this has been me all summer HAHA
Hard same.
I am absolutely bombing this section DEAR LORD take me out
this me fr right now lol. Only reason I got this right was that I saw this on lsat demon last week...
My first L in this section. I blame it on being up late celebrating the Knicks winning the chip.
i am not getting a single one right, kms
Alright streak is done, I'll see y'all in the next section
I got this one for us big homie. Believe in yourself.
this stimulus was so hard for me to understand
This is how I thought of it. I can't really give any explanations for the other wrong answer choices because I just felt like it wasn't close enough to what I came up with; and I probably should fix that mindset. I just felt like all were irrelevant.
Something that has helped me with flaw questions is reminding myself that we are strictly focused on looking at how the premise does not properly support the argument being made. That's been crucial in helping me get rid of the easy wrong answers.
Conclusion: If we can prevent all of this disease, the number of deaths would decrease by half.
Premise: Because the same number of people die from this disease is more than all other causes combined.
When I first did this problem, I was thinking immediately that preventing a disease does not equal dying from it. That was wrong. This time around, I realized that the flaw was that the author equated having a disease is the same as dying from it. But this is something that cannot be absolutely true. What if they have multiple diseases beyond just one, or what if they do things that can kill them anyways?
Let's think of it like this. Person B has stomach cancer and is also an avid smoker. So let's get rid of all stomach cancer (yay!). Sure, Person B no longer has cancer, but they're an avid smoker, and will later die from lung cancer or whatever other effects smoking has. Just because you got rid of the stomach cancer (the disease) does not mean you are guaranteeing that they will not die.
Another example: Person A has a really weak heart but also has pneumonia. If you get rid of pneumonia, Person A could still die, but from their heart giving out.
Hope this helps someone else! This helped me quickly get to C; I just crossed everything else out because it was irrelevant to how the premise is trying to support the argument.
This was so so helpful thank you!!! <3
we need a chart on all the rewording possibilities indeed.
Hey, I'm not so far into the weakening questions lessons but here's what I've gathered so far!
-assumes (without warrant) - includes not within answer
-presumes (without justification) - includes not within answer
-fails to consider
-neglects (to take into account the possibility)
these four stems should be the basis of the rewording
I'm flopping
"This seems like a totally logical argument to me, so I am in trouble." Me every day since I bestowed this endeavor of taking the LSAT since May.
i'm so confident on my choices and they're just wrong bruh
Damn the way I read this question was not at all as how he read it lol.
The reason why E is wrong is because even if we concede that there is always a "risk" of iatrogenic disease, the argument is only making its conclusion within a world in which all iatrogenic disease has been prevented. So regardless, no one in this hypothetical world would die from iatrogenic disease anyways.
Our task in this question is to expose a flaw that would weaken the conclusion. So how does considering E to be true do anything to damage the claim that half of all deaths would be prevented? It doesn't.
Correct. Couldn't have said it better myself.
In this question, the correct answer choice was impressively subtle
Getting this question right because you come from an anti-modern medicine town and heard this a hundred times. Work smarter, not harder amirite?
Almost picked c but thought it was too easy.
This stimulus beat me up.
researcher/lsat:
I thought C is a little too crual and direct before... I should realize that, not all right answer is also right in the real world, now we're in the lawgic world
I get why, but these videos are way too long
I agree, at some point its just rambling on and on
I feel the same way, but it's honestly so great to have things repeated at you again and again. If you hear something once you'll probably forget it, but if you hear it 100 times, even if you're not paying full attention, it'll stick in your brain
these are soooo hit or miss for me. It either is extremely apparent or I can't see it at all. This one I got in 1 minute, the other I took 10 minutes and got wrong and BR I guessed and got it right. Does anyone have tips? :(
Am I the only one that was confused by the sentence structure?
@jaleah_taylor I was