I understand this is a difficult question, but by the time most people are 10 minutes through this video theres no way they're still engaged. If there's a way to cut down on the length of the explanation video I believe it would correlate to a better understanding. #feedback
What tripped me up so hard and took me forever was trying to break down what every answer choice was saying. at one point i was like theres no way im reading english rn
I got this right but I've studied before for the LSAT. Advice for these questions: learn sufficient/necessary and how it activates/does not and learn the common flaws/lingo they use for these questions. They become much easier. DM me, if you need any help.
I think it would be helpful if all of the flaws that we will typically encounter were discussed at the beginning of this module, as I believe it was in ccv1. #feedback
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 am getting cooked in these flaw questions — feel like im on the precipice of it clicking but it's not quite clicking for me and I have incredibly high solve times. any tips on these that I may be missing?
bro thats how I have been feeling from the onset fo Lawgic I will have to go back and review everything for sure may have to redo a lot of the course just to make sure everything I sticking
This started to happen to me yesterday as well. I started getting questions wrong and couldn't understand why, even after watching the videos. I decided that it really was a bad study day so I quit and went to bed. Tried again today and everything makes sense. You can do it!
Lesson learned: Not a sufficient cause does not mean that there is no causal factor. There are causal factors that are neither necessary or sufficient.
Ignoring "bulged dick" let me see if I can help lol
For me, I picture sufficiency as a "trigger." So, for a bulged or slipped disc to be sufficient, that would mean anyone who has one automatically triggers having that back pain as well. But, we learn from the stimulus that this isn't right. If we break down the argument, it's basically just saying "well if it doesn't automatically trigger that pain then obviously it doesn't lead to that pain." Kind of a shitty argument.
JY's example is that if smoking were sufficient for lung cancer, anyone who smoked would obviously also get lunch cancer. but that isn't the case. It IS the case however that smoking can potentially lead to lung cancer. It's also the case that a bulged disc can potentially lead to severe back pain. But it doesn't automatically trigger it. This is what the argument fails to consider.
I am CONSTANTLY confusing myself with sufficiency and necessity, especially in questions like this where it isn't really super clear. What helps me the most is to remind myself of the "New York/USA" example and see if I can apply it to the question at hand:
Being in New York is sufficient for being in the United States. ie if you're in NYC, you're automatically also in the USA. But, being in the USA is not sufficient for being in New York. For example, I could be in Utah. So, saying "I'm in the USA" does not trigger that I'm in New York.
For this argument, if you want bulging discs to be your sufficient condition, you have to make it New York and you have to make 'having extreme back pain' the USA. Once you do that, you realize that simply having those discs isn't enough to automatically trigger the pain. Does that make sense?
Idk-I also struggled between AC A and AC B, but B just pointed to the weakness of the actual argument a lot more
A is wrong because it is saying that the author is stating based on the fact that some people do not have bulging disks and still have back pain that no causal relationship exists between the two. NO, that is not the mistake the author makes, he is saying there are cases where there is no effect, and yet the cause is there and based on that there is not causal relationship between bulging disks and back pain.
B on the other hand is addressing that yes there can be cases where there is no effect and still be a causal relationship. Maybe, alone the bulging disks do not lead to back pain, so that would fall under the subset of cases where there is no effect, yet a cause, but that does not mean that bulging disks do not lead to back pain. Perhaps, a bulging disk in conjunction with another cause it what leads to back pain. They could have taken different routes to stress this flaw, but at its core, it is pinpointing the flaw is that the absence of the effect does not exclude there being a causal relationship between the two things.
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.
167 comments
Getting a question wrong and having to listen for 21 minutes about why I'm stupid is my nightmare
This is truly a universal experience I am convinced. At least we can all be here together
This one gave me back pain ngl
I understand this is a difficult question, but by the time most people are 10 minutes through this video theres no way they're still engaged. If there's a way to cut down on the length of the explanation video I believe it would correlate to a better understanding. #feedback
What tripped me up so hard and took me forever was trying to break down what every answer choice was saying. at one point i was like theres no way im reading english rn
@jrm98 "there's no way I'm reading English rn" has been my thought so many times throughout this process
@jrm98 LITERALLY SAME.
False alarm, we are in fact not back
Aight im taking a break lol
this should definitely be level 5 difficulty...
This whole section is going to cause me to throw my laptop out the window. I have gotten nearly every drill wrong!!!!
I got this right but I've studied before for the LSAT. Advice for these questions: learn sufficient/necessary and how it activates/does not and learn the common flaws/lingo they use for these questions. They become much easier. DM me, if you need any help.
I think it would be helpful if all of the flaws that we will typically encounter were discussed at the beginning of this module, as I believe it was in ccv1. #feedback
Very good point!! I think that applies to the rest of the CC too
I agree!
Point taken! It's a work in progress.
It has been a few months... any chance we get to see this happen?
Not yet, sorry. We've been prioritizing other improvements. Here's the lesson (from CC v1) though: https://7sage.com/lesson/21-common-argument-flaws/
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
@GavinMartin17 Totally agree
i am getting cooked in these flaw questions — feel like im on the precipice of it clicking but it's not quite clicking for me and I have incredibly high solve times. any tips on these that I may be missing?
bro thats how I have been feeling from the onset fo Lawgic I will have to go back and review everything for sure may have to redo a lot of the course just to make sure everything I sticking
Same. Flaw questions are much easier for me than questions that require strong grip on lawgic.
When you think b is the trap but it's really the right answer :(:(:(
doing this question while bedbound due to a slipped disc. the universe is mocking me i fear
i got cooked here
Why did these answer choices sound like complete gibberish to me -_-
The analogy of cigarettes as a causal factor and not a sufficient factor was very helpful to understanding this stim!
Agreed, I love when analogies are used. It makes it easier to understand and see the errors made in the reasoning.
Yea I am completely lost upon this section. Hopefully it gets better
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 started to happen to me yesterday as well. I started getting questions wrong and couldn't understand why, even after watching the videos. I decided that it really was a bad study day so I quit and went to bed. Tried again today and everything makes sense. You can do it!
Thank you :,) that makes me feel better
It took me 7 minutes but I got it right. I have no idea how I'm going to be able to speed this shit up.
Same :( That's what messes me up so bad.
Friends have told me go for accuracy and then keep practicing for speed. It just takes practice; I believe in you!
Lesson learned: Not a sufficient cause does not mean that there is no causal factor. There are causal factors that are neither necessary or sufficient.
I was so torn between A & B, but I settled on A.
Facepalm.
I am still a bit confused as to why A is wrong. Why is a bulged or slipped dick not sufficient to cause back pain?
#help
Ignoring "bulged dick" let me see if I can help lol
For me, I picture sufficiency as a "trigger." So, for a bulged or slipped disc to be sufficient, that would mean anyone who has one automatically triggers having that back pain as well. But, we learn from the stimulus that this isn't right. If we break down the argument, it's basically just saying "well if it doesn't automatically trigger that pain then obviously it doesn't lead to that pain." Kind of a shitty argument.
JY's example is that if smoking were sufficient for lung cancer, anyone who smoked would obviously also get lunch cancer. but that isn't the case. It IS the case however that smoking can potentially lead to lung cancer. It's also the case that a bulged disc can potentially lead to severe back pain. But it doesn't automatically trigger it. This is what the argument fails to consider.
I am CONSTANTLY confusing myself with sufficiency and necessity, especially in questions like this where it isn't really super clear. What helps me the most is to remind myself of the "New York/USA" example and see if I can apply it to the question at hand:
Being in New York is sufficient for being in the United States. ie if you're in NYC, you're automatically also in the USA. But, being in the USA is not sufficient for being in New York. For example, I could be in Utah. So, saying "I'm in the USA" does not trigger that I'm in New York.
For this argument, if you want bulging discs to be your sufficient condition, you have to make it New York and you have to make 'having extreme back pain' the USA. Once you do that, you realize that simply having those discs isn't enough to automatically trigger the pain. Does that make sense?
Idk-I also struggled between AC A and AC B, but B just pointed to the weakness of the actual argument a lot more
A is wrong because it is saying that the author is stating based on the fact that some people do not have bulging disks and still have back pain that no causal relationship exists between the two. NO, that is not the mistake the author makes, he is saying there are cases where there is no effect, and yet the cause is there and based on that there is not causal relationship between bulging disks and back pain.
B on the other hand is addressing that yes there can be cases where there is no effect and still be a causal relationship. Maybe, alone the bulging disks do not lead to back pain, so that would fall under the subset of cases where there is no effect, yet a cause, but that does not mean that bulging disks do not lead to back pain. Perhaps, a bulging disk in conjunction with another cause it what leads to back pain. They could have taken different routes to stress this flaw, but at its core, it is pinpointing the flaw is that the absence of the effect does not exclude there being a causal relationship between the two things.
Bulged dick huh
If i get questions like these on the exam, I'm leaving it till the end because wtf. I did POE and got it right somehow.
Got it right but wth
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.