Can I interpret the answer choice (B) as: if there are other conditions necessary for [evolved life -> presence of liquid water] (premise), then the argument that [presence of liquid water -> evolved primitive life] (the flawed conclusion) collapses? But still, I'm confused with how this explanation equivalent to [mistaking necessity for sufficiency]? Can anyone explain to me please?
Its interesting to me that I find this section the easiest while others find this the hardest. Vice versa I find NA questions the most difficult while some find it incredibly easy.
i understood that the flaw is "just because you have met the necessary condition, does not mean that you have the sufficient condition"
but i didn't understand how that is the same as "fails to consider there are other necessary conditions for life",
helps me to think in sets:
if you have subset life, then you have superset water.
you are in the superset water
therefore, you are in the subset life.
wrong logic.
flaw: fails to consider... there are conditions, other than water/in addition to water, that is necessary (still in superset) for you to be in the subset life.
i find myself getting confused by all the ways we can describe the sufficient/necessity flaw, and so I was really confused by the answer choices in this question even though I thought I anticipated correctly :( so I thought of another way to try and remember the relationship for this type of question (forgive me if someone has already said something similar in a previous lesson and I missed it!): Think of the sufficient like a brownie, and water as the necessary. The water is just one ingredient amongst several that work together to create the big picture (the brownie/sufficient condition). So if you have a brownie, you know for a fact that there is water there, but you CANNOT say that if you have water then that means I must be eating a brownie. Because there are other ingredients that could be important for putting together the brownie.
So for these questions, when I find myself anticipating "oh they just switched the conditions, but the answer choices are confusing me in how they describe it!" then it can be helpful to think "ok switching the conditions means they aren't considering how there could be other things (ingredients) NECESSARY for bringing about the same outcome" i.e. a brownie is NOT necessary for the presence of water
I hope this helps, and please correct me if I'm doing something wrong!
I got this one right as well. The argument is vulnerable because the premise states life can only evolve in the presence of water. The argument fails to consider the possibilities of other things that can evolve life.
Every time there is a flaw in the statement by someone, no matter scientist or journalist, he would assume this is a female and use "she" directly without saying "he" or "she". This is really disrespectful.
I got the answer right, but I feel as though the author does address the criticism by saying "life as we know it could evolve only in the presence of liquid water". Am I missing something?
peeps, i took a break from the CC and went to a live class..............reinstated my confidence!!! not sure if y'all are attending the live classes but i am going to be adding them into my study plan. they really do help solidify concepts.
Been flopping this entire lesson, flaw questions have always been a weakness for me but I finally locked in with the sufficiency/necessity logic, any tips for the future?
Obviously sufficiency/necessity confusion is an issue here but I still do not understand how answer choice B has the same meaning as the classic sufficiency/necessity confusion. Seems to be a different flaw entirely.
Why does the lesson say is 20 minutes long when the video is only 12 minutes? #feedback
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
60 comments
Can I interpret the answer choice (B) as: if there are other conditions necessary for [evolved life -> presence of liquid water] (premise), then the argument that [presence of liquid water -> evolved primitive life] (the flawed conclusion) collapses? But still, I'm confused with how this explanation equivalent to [mistaking necessity for sufficiency]? Can anyone explain to me please?
me when i read an answer choice wrong so i get the question wrong
Its interesting to me that I find this section the easiest while others find this the hardest. Vice versa I find NA questions the most difficult while some find it incredibly easy.
Wow this science journalists needs to be fired immediately. Even Mr. Fat Cat wouldn't make a mistake like this.
i understood that the flaw is "just because you have met the necessary condition, does not mean that you have the sufficient condition"
but i didn't understand how that is the same as "fails to consider there are other necessary conditions for life",
helps me to think in sets:
if you have subset life, then you have superset water.
you are in the superset water
therefore, you are in the subset life.
wrong logic.
flaw: fails to consider... there are conditions, other than water/in addition to water, that is necessary (still in superset) for you to be in the subset life.
#Feedback how do I do blind review? This whole new system is confusing and why isn't it showing me the time?
MEATBALL
Do not understand how B is mistaking sufficiency for necessity when its just asking to consider other necessary conditions?
#help So, the ‘Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions’ flaw is the same thing as the ‘fails to consider other necessary conditions’ flaw?
Honestly I was so between A and B but chose B timed then in BL I felt like A was pretty reasonable.
i find myself getting confused by all the ways we can describe the sufficient/necessity flaw, and so I was really confused by the answer choices in this question even though I thought I anticipated correctly :( so I thought of another way to try and remember the relationship for this type of question (forgive me if someone has already said something similar in a previous lesson and I missed it!): Think of the sufficient like a brownie, and water as the necessary. The water is just one ingredient amongst several that work together to create the big picture (the brownie/sufficient condition). So if you have a brownie, you know for a fact that there is water there, but you CANNOT say that if you have water then that means I must be eating a brownie. Because there are other ingredients that could be important for putting together the brownie.
So for these questions, when I find myself anticipating "oh they just switched the conditions, but the answer choices are confusing me in how they describe it!" then it can be helpful to think "ok switching the conditions means they aren't considering how there could be other things (ingredients) NECESSARY for bringing about the same outcome" i.e. a brownie is NOT necessary for the presence of water
I hope this helps, and please correct me if I'm doing something wrong!
I got this one right as well. The argument is vulnerable because the premise states life can only evolve in the presence of water. The argument fails to consider the possibilities of other things that can evolve life.
Every time there is a flaw in the statement by someone, no matter scientist or journalist, he would assume this is a female and use "she" directly without saying "he" or "she". This is really disrespectful.
Could someone pls articulate further how the specific phrasing of B indicates the sufficiency-necessity confusion committed in the stimulus?
I got the answer right, but I feel as though the author does address the criticism by saying "life as we know it could evolve only in the presence of liquid water". Am I missing something?
Finally got one right. I definitely hate these questions. Hopefully we can turn it around.
After getting the last three wrong, I needed this win. AND I got it 11 seconds faster than target lol I'll take it.
peeps, i took a break from the CC and went to a live class..............reinstated my confidence!!! not sure if y'all are attending the live classes but i am going to be adding them into my study plan. they really do help solidify concepts.
Been flopping this entire lesson, flaw questions have always been a weakness for me but I finally locked in with the sufficiency/necessity logic, any tips for the future?
Obviously sufficiency/necessity confusion is an issue here but I still do not understand how answer choice B has the same meaning as the classic sufficiency/necessity confusion. Seems to be a different flaw entirely.
sufficiency vs necessity.
@3:15
#pause hahaha
Changing the answer in BR when you initially had it correct is the worst...
anyone else feel weird about how attracted J.Y is to these other answers??? stay loyal man
Why does the lesson say is 20 minutes long when the video is only 12 minutes? #feedback