Replacing the words with "a factor" with bulging and slipped disks and "certain effect" with back pain really helped understanding the answer choices easier which allowed me to get it correct
I don't know if it's just me but the way he explains why the ACs are wrong just confuse me even more. Instead of creating another argument in a totally different setting, can't he just simply state, without overcomplicating, why the AC does not fit this particular argument? By the end of the explanations, I still don't understand why I got the answer wrong or how the other ACs weren't right for this argument. Might just be me though since english isn't my first language.
Is anyone else having trouble understanding the wording of this stimulus?
These individuals said they had never experienced serious back pain..."since these individuals with b/sd evidently felt no pain from them"?? HUH? I was stuck on this part because no serious back pain=no pain at all and that is taken to be true.
"These conditions could not lead to serious back pain in people who do experience such pain". A cannot lead to B in people who have B?
Maybe I'm just tired but I watched the video a few times and I still don't understand. I got the question right but I don't know how since I did not fully understand the stimulus.
This is the first question I have got right in the past few. I first tried poe and narrowed to a/b then I added the language in as is suggested in the video. A simply did not seem to match the argument and B revealed the flaw.
I interpreted it as, just because those that did have slipped disks/bulging disks & did not experience pain does not mean those who are experiencing back pain is not a result of the same issues the individuals are experiencing (bulging disks/slipped disks).
A) A factor that need not be present in order for a certain effect to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect.
The doctor concludes that slipped disks do not lead to back pain in people who experience such pain. So does the doctor fail to consider that slipped disks may be sufficient (although not necessary) to produce back pain? No! The doctor explicitly says that slipped disks do NOT contribute causally to back pain.
B) A factor that is not in itself sufficient to produce a certain effect may nonetheless be partly responsible for that effect in some instances.
Correct! Slipped disks may not be sufficient to produce back pain, but they might be part of a group of several factors that cause pain if they occur together. The doctor's argument fails to consider this possibility.
C) An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomenon might not occur when that phenomenon is present.
Does not map on to the stimulus properly. "An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomemon" ... mapped on to our stimulus would be:
effect: no pain
phenomenon: NO slipped disks
The effect 'no pain' that occurs in the absence of 'NO slipped disks' (aka in the presence of slipped disks) might not occur (aka pain is present) in the presence of 'NO slipped disks'.
In other words, the doctor is overlooking the possibility of pain in the absence of slipped disks. Well, I guess this is true, strictly speaking. The argument doesn't talk about people who don't have slipped disks but who experience back pain ... but that's irrelevant! The argument is about whether or not slipped disks contribute to back pain.
D) A characteristic found in half of a given sample of the population might not occur in half of the entire population.
Okay sure, but that doesn't matter. Even if there was only one person in the sample who had slipped disks without back pain, that would be enough to say that slipped disks are not sufficient to cause back pain. Thus, D) does not reveal the flaw in the doctor's argument.
E) A factor that does not bring about a certain effect may nonetheless be more likely to be present when the effect occurs than when the effect does not occur.
This is saying "even though slipped disks don't cause back pain, they are correlated with back pain." Even though the doctor doesn't explicitly say this (so technically, the argument fails to consider it), it's consistent with their argument that slipped disks don't cause pain. The doctor isn't saying that people with back pain can't or are less likely to have slipped disks, they are saying that the slipped disks are not the cause of their pain. E) does not reveal the flaw in the argument, which is that slipped disks may operate if conjunction with other factors to cause pain, even though they aren't sufficient to cause pain on their own.
Wanted to clarify why A is incorrect and what helped me rule it out quickly. AC A refers to a "factor" (slipped disc) that it states is sufficient to produce an effect (back pain) but AC A also tells us one can have back pain WITHOUT slipped discs. Notice how this has nothing to do with our stimulus. The stimulus refers to two groups WITH slipped discs yet only one group experiences back pain.
In addition according to A slipped discs (the factor) is sufficient to produce back pain (effect) but our stimulus immediately disproves this because we have people with slipped disks (the supposed sufficient condition in A) who experience no back pain (the effect) despite satisfying the sufficient condition. Notice how this makes no sense. How can slipped disc be a sufficient condition for back pain yet when satisfied according to the stim does not result in the effect.
"A factor (for example, a slipped disc) that need not be present in order for a certain effect (for example, serious back pain) to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect."
In other words, a slipped disc does not need to be present to cause serious back pain but can be something that nonetheless causes serious back pain.
And this is why I chose A when I blind reviewed...
This is definitely a question which highlights the importance of taking the time to understand both the stim. If you take the time to understand the stim fully and the relationships between these concepts, an answer choice like A makes no sense.
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!
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.
140 comments
Replacing the words with "a factor" with bulging and slipped disks and "certain effect" with back pain really helped understanding the answer choices easier which allowed me to get it correct
I don't know if it's just me but the way he explains why the ACs are wrong just confuse me even more. Instead of creating another argument in a totally different setting, can't he just simply state, without overcomplicating, why the AC does not fit this particular argument? By the end of the explanations, I still don't understand why I got the answer wrong or how the other ACs weren't right for this argument. Might just be me though since english isn't my first language.
pin abstract concept in answer choice to the specific concept in stimulus
ex: factor (bulging or slipped disks in spine) and produce effect (back pain)
Is anyone else having trouble understanding the wording of this stimulus?
These individuals said they had never experienced serious back pain..."since these individuals with b/sd evidently felt no pain from them"?? HUH? I was stuck on this part because no serious back pain=no pain at all and that is taken to be true.
"These conditions could not lead to serious back pain in people who do experience such pain". A cannot lead to B in people who have B?
Maybe I'm just tired but I watched the video a few times and I still don't understand. I got the question right but I don't know how since I did not fully understand the stimulus.
When you think b is the trap but it's really the right answer :(:(:(
Wow I can't believe I got this one right
i must be stupid bc i did not get this like yall in the comments...
This is the first question I have got right in the past few. I first tried poe and narrowed to a/b then I added the language in as is suggested in the video. A simply did not seem to match the argument and B revealed the flaw.
I interpreted it as, just because those that did have slipped disks/bulging disks & did not experience pain does not mean those who are experiencing back pain is not a result of the same issues the individuals are experiencing (bulging disks/slipped disks).
got it correct but in 3.5 minutes lol
Let me put the translations here so maybe someone can see the answer better:
“A factor”: a slipped or bulging disk
“Effect/ certain effect”: back pain
“A phenomenon”: the absence of a slipped or bulging disk
“A characteristic”: no back pain despite a slipped or bulging disk
Once I started putting these in for the abstract terms in my mind, everything started to click so much better.
POE:
A) A factor that need not be present in order for a certain effect to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect.
The doctor concludes that slipped disks do not lead to back pain in people who experience such pain. So does the doctor fail to consider that slipped disks may be sufficient (although not necessary) to produce back pain? No! The doctor explicitly says that slipped disks do NOT contribute causally to back pain.
B) A factor that is not in itself sufficient to produce a certain effect may nonetheless be partly responsible for that effect in some instances.
Correct! Slipped disks may not be sufficient to produce back pain, but they might be part of a group of several factors that cause pain if they occur together. The doctor's argument fails to consider this possibility.
C) An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomenon might not occur when that phenomenon is present.
Does not map on to the stimulus properly. "An effect that occurs in the absence of a particular phenomemon" ... mapped on to our stimulus would be:
effect: no pain
phenomenon: NO slipped disks
The effect 'no pain' that occurs in the absence of 'NO slipped disks' (aka in the presence of slipped disks) might not occur (aka pain is present) in the presence of 'NO slipped disks'.
In other words, the doctor is overlooking the possibility of pain in the absence of slipped disks. Well, I guess this is true, strictly speaking. The argument doesn't talk about people who don't have slipped disks but who experience back pain ... but that's irrelevant! The argument is about whether or not slipped disks contribute to back pain.
D) A characteristic found in half of a given sample of the population might not occur in half of the entire population.
Okay sure, but that doesn't matter. Even if there was only one person in the sample who had slipped disks without back pain, that would be enough to say that slipped disks are not sufficient to cause back pain. Thus, D) does not reveal the flaw in the doctor's argument.
E) A factor that does not bring about a certain effect may nonetheless be more likely to be present when the effect occurs than when the effect does not occur.
This is saying "even though slipped disks don't cause back pain, they are correlated with back pain." Even though the doctor doesn't explicitly say this (so technically, the argument fails to consider it), it's consistent with their argument that slipped disks don't cause pain. The doctor isn't saying that people with back pain can't or are less likely to have slipped disks, they are saying that the slipped disks are not the cause of their pain. E) does not reveal the flaw in the argument, which is that slipped disks may operate if conjunction with other factors to cause pain, even though they aren't sufficient to cause pain on their own.
Wanted to clarify why A is incorrect and what helped me rule it out quickly. AC A refers to a "factor" (slipped disc) that it states is sufficient to produce an effect (back pain) but AC A also tells us one can have back pain WITHOUT slipped discs. Notice how this has nothing to do with our stimulus. The stimulus refers to two groups WITH slipped discs yet only one group experiences back pain.
In addition according to A slipped discs (the factor) is sufficient to produce back pain (effect) but our stimulus immediately disproves this because we have people with slipped disks (the supposed sufficient condition in A) who experience no back pain (the effect) despite satisfying the sufficient condition. Notice how this makes no sense. How can slipped disc be a sufficient condition for back pain yet when satisfied according to the stim does not result in the effect.
chose B for 5 min and then gaslit myself into E for some reason LMAO
Bruh. for b, i understood the first part and not the second part so I went with A. SMH
10 question streak but i know my downfall is just around the corner
doing this question while bedbound due to a slipped disc. the universe is mocking me i fear
Matching answer choices to what the stimulus talks about (the referentials) kinda helps I guess
Bruh I got it right but it took me 4 min
Hear me out on A though...
"A factor (for example, a slipped disc) that need not be present in order for a certain effect (for example, serious back pain) to arise may nonetheless be sufficient to produce that effect."
In other words, a slipped disc does not need to be present to cause serious back pain but can be something that nonetheless causes serious back pain.
And this is why I chose A when I blind reviewed...
Chose B initially. Is that reading of A wrong?
if y’all ever feel bad about yourselves just know I have gotten 8 wrong in a row. I think today is not a good study day. :,)
This is definitely a question which highlights the importance of taking the time to understand both the stim. If you take the time to understand the stim fully and the relationships between these concepts, an answer choice like A makes no sense.
bruh make ur explanations shorter
fuckthis 😆😆
JY has lit my mind on fire with knowledge