I genuinely don't understand how "the only" in the last sentence of the Scientist's claim is a group 1 indicator. I would have loved if the video discussed that more because it contradicts what I (think) I learned in the foundations section.
Can someone dumb it down for why it's A?? Because the scientist was talking about the M group getting cured, and the reporter also says that anyone in the study had athlete's foot that was not cured, that person did not receive medication M. So, I am confused on how his statement was wrong? He speicifed what the scientist said and specified it about that exact experimental groups done in the study. Also if someone can dumb down "confusing necessity with sufficient" that would be great, because I feel like maybe I am understanding the concept wrong :')
@Arthurxx So, we don't know if EVERYONE in the first group who got medication M was cured. We only know that some of them were. We know that no one in the second group who only got medication N were cured. The reporter says "if anyone in the study had athlete's foot that was not cured, that person did not receive medication M." BUT, we don't know if that's true. Because it's possible that some in the first group who did get medication M were not cured. So, to be cured, it was sufficient to receive medication M. But receiving medication M doesn't necessarily mean that you will be cured.
BRUHH I thought "only" was group two, so I (allegedly) mapped it out incorrectly and got it wrong. But, when I went back to the foundations to check, it was on the list of indicators for group 2 - necessary???? so idk if I'm missing something? Or if anyone else had the same issue?
Hey guys on the actual LSAT there are no questions this easy tbh. Like it is usually about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split between level 3, 4 and 5 questions. I have pulled a 178 and 179 on practice tests but got a 167 in February
I agree that most of the questions we have had are dumb easy and not representative of most questions we will see on the real thing, but practice tests are previous tests. Are you saying the new tests are just harder than the older tests?
They made LR and RC harder and more nuanced after they dropped logic games. So yes, the new LR and RC sections are harder than the older ones. Because of this, not much of what we are given to practice is truly representative of the newest difficulty spike, in my opinion. The fundamentals are the same, but the difference between wrong and right answers is much, much more subtle than they used to be. There are very few gimme questions on the actual LSAT from my experience.
I agree with this. I think I was nervous on test day, but I got a 165 when I had been practice testing in the 174 range. The logic sections were certainly harder. I thought reading was about the same, but many others said they thought it was harder too.
Yes nerves play a factor and depending on the person it makes sense to test a bit lower on the actual test. But seriously LR is brutal on the real LSAT. It is no joke.
It is you’re right, but is entirely proven that they made LR more difficult and nuanced after they removed logic games. They just don’t have that smooth, predictable difficulty ramp anymore. PowerScore even recommends certain PTs that are closer to the real LSAT, since most PTs are a notch or two easier than the real thing.
@jwmiller238 Wrong. The LR section is not proven to be significantly more difficult on new tests. What everyone is likely seeing is that test-day environments can affect your scores to make them different beacuse of the differences in environement when compared to their PT environment.
Can someone help me understand how E does not mean /cured -> /M, which then translates to M->cured, which IS the flaw of the argument? I get the "sizeable subgroup" sets component being weird and squishy but wondering if the rest holds.
I had the exact same translation, which led me to choose E. I think this is one of those cases when relying solely on conditional indicators come back to bite you. The sentence has both negate necessary and necessary indicator in it, so if you simply rely on the indicators, you wouldn't know what to do since both indicate necessary condition. Once I read the E again, I instantly know what it is talking about "no sizable subgroup exists that will have their feet cured only if they don't take M" and that conditional statement does not touch the flaw of the stimulus.
Someone help! I don't understand how answer A demonstrates sufficiency and necessity confusion. It says "M always cures athlete's foot." Isn't "always" apart of group 2 conditional indicators? So wouldn't answer A be saying that the reporter is concluding the same thing as the scientist?
I had the same confusion but I followed the following logic:
The reporter is saying /athlete's foot cured --> /M which is the same as M --> athlete's foot cured.
Answer choice A is saying that the reporter makes the wrong interpretation of saying that "M always cures athlete's foot" from what the scientist said.
"Always" is the indicator so anything after that is the necessary condition. So in lawgic, you get M --> cure athlete's foot which is what we got initially in the reading. The scientist, on the other hand, is saying that "the only people who whose athlete's foot was cured had been given medication M." The indicator phrase is "the only" which is part of sufficient condition [Group 1]. So the scientist is saying athlete's foot cured --> M. The reporter flipped these around. Hope that makes sense!
I've noticed I am so nervous about answers that even though I get them correct, I am taking way too long to move onto the next question because I am double checking my answer.
So satisfying when you read the first AC and choose it right away. Feeling like it's starting to click on most question types working within time recommendations.
In my opinion, if you have the tools to get it right, even after several minutes, you are in good shape. I would work on consistently getting questions right in BR, making a log of the ones I get wrong during BR, and focusing on those later.
Once you train your mind to deconstruct the stimulus and question description correctly, you should start increasing in speed.
I took 0:56 for this question and got it right (first try).
First, I read the question stem and highlighted the keywords. Then, I read the stimulus paying close attention to what the reporter's flaw was (basically going on a mission). Then when I looked at the answer choices, AC A looked perfect. I selected that THEN I scanned the other ones (I was set on A mostly) in case A had some mistake I overlooked that another choice didn't make.
This has been my strategy through the whole curriculum and it has worked thus far for me. As long as your accuracy and reasoning are solid, you should be fine trusting your gut like this.
I mostly struggle with stamina during actual tests (apart from LG), so timing isn't a huge issue for me, but it's still obviously a difficulty (35 minutes is short!).
Depends. If I've just missed a question out of carelessness on a hard section, then I'll take up to 5 minutes to carefully weigh my answer. However, if there is something glaring like this one and the right answer is the first one I read, then I'll just pick it and move on. This one took me about a minute, but I've spent up to 10 minutes unpacking sufficient assumption questions. Taking 1:30 is not bad at all, especially during the curriculum. Maybe you'll want to speed up a bit during the test, but that's not until you have a robust understanding of the question type.
This one took me 1min 11sec, this one I got pretty intuitively, but there are some questions I'll spend 3 or 4 minutes on! I'm not too focused on time right now, I'm more so concerned with getting the answers right and understanding why wrong answers are wrong. Speed will come with practice!
Focus on getting the answer right- however long that takes when practicing. Understand the logic & thought process, then over time you will naturally get quicker. However, if you don't have the logic down then you will never get them quicker.
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.
60 comments
Why was D Wrong?
I genuinely don't understand how "the only" in the last sentence of the Scientist's claim is a group 1 indicator. I would have loved if the video discussed that more because it contradicts what I (think) I learned in the foundations section.
#help
Can someone dumb it down for why it's A?? Because the scientist was talking about the M group getting cured, and the reporter also says that anyone in the study had athlete's foot that was not cured, that person did not receive medication M. So, I am confused on how his statement was wrong? He speicifed what the scientist said and specified it about that exact experimental groups done in the study. Also if someone can dumb down "confusing necessity with sufficient" that would be great, because I feel like maybe I am understanding the concept wrong :')
@Arthurxx So, we don't know if EVERYONE in the first group who got medication M was cured. We only know that some of them were. We know that no one in the second group who only got medication N were cured. The reporter says "if anyone in the study had athlete's foot that was not cured, that person did not receive medication M." BUT, we don't know if that's true. Because it's possible that some in the first group who did get medication M were not cured. So, to be cured, it was sufficient to receive medication M. But receiving medication M doesn't necessarily mean that you will be cured.
BRUHH I thought "only" was group two, so I (allegedly) mapped it out incorrectly and got it wrong. But, when I went back to the foundations to check, it was on the list of indicators for group 2 - necessary???? so idk if I'm missing something? Or if anyone else had the same issue?
@sopherthegopher "the only" is a group 1 sufficient indicator. so technically the argument would read cured (sufficient) -> med M (necessary)!
@oxford_comma ohhhhh lol, thank you ◡̈
Hey guys on the actual LSAT there are no questions this easy tbh. Like it is usually about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split between level 3, 4 and 5 questions. I have pulled a 178 and 179 on practice tests but got a 167 in February
I agree that most of the questions we have had are dumb easy and not representative of most questions we will see on the real thing, but practice tests are previous tests. Are you saying the new tests are just harder than the older tests?
well that sucks to hear. thx for letting us know
They made LR and RC harder and more nuanced after they dropped logic games. So yes, the new LR and RC sections are harder than the older ones. Because of this, not much of what we are given to practice is truly representative of the newest difficulty spike, in my opinion. The fundamentals are the same, but the difference between wrong and right answers is much, much more subtle than they used to be. There are very few gimme questions on the actual LSAT from my experience.
So do you recommend only relying on the 3-5 difficulty level questions for an accurate LSAT test result?
I agree with this. I think I was nervous on test day, but I got a 165 when I had been practice testing in the 174 range. The logic sections were certainly harder. I thought reading was about the same, but many others said they thought it was harder too.
Yes nerves play a factor and depending on the person it makes sense to test a bit lower on the actual test. But seriously LR is brutal on the real LSAT. It is no joke.
@jwmiller238 Would you say that the level 4 and 5 questions after this question are more representative of the current LSAT?
This is anecdotal and highly subjective. But thanks for the confidence booster!
It is you’re right, but is entirely proven that they made LR more difficult and nuanced after they removed logic games. They just don’t have that smooth, predictable difficulty ramp anymore. PowerScore even recommends certain PTs that are closer to the real LSAT, since most PTs are a notch or two easier than the real thing.
@jwmiller238 Wrong. The LR section is not proven to be significantly more difficult on new tests. What everyone is likely seeing is that test-day environments can affect your scores to make them different beacuse of the differences in environement when compared to their PT environment.
I chose B initially but in BR understood why A was the correct answer
YEAH WELL WHAT IF THE ATHLETES FOOT CURED ITSELF
Can someone help me understand how E does not mean /cured -> /M, which then translates to M->cured, which IS the flaw of the argument? I get the "sizeable subgroup" sets component being weird and squishy but wondering if the rest holds.
I'm not sure if this helps or if this is what youre asking but M->cured is NOT the lawgic of this stim. The correct lawgic is cured->M.
I had the exact same translation, which led me to choose E. I think this is one of those cases when relying solely on conditional indicators come back to bite you. The sentence has both negate necessary and necessary indicator in it, so if you simply rely on the indicators, you wouldn't know what to do since both indicate necessary condition. Once I read the E again, I instantly know what it is talking about "no sizable subgroup exists that will have their feet cured only if they don't take M" and that conditional statement does not touch the flaw of the stimulus.
You’re right - thank you!
Thank you!
I knew only and always were synonymous, why I second guessed myself? no clue
This specific question has proved to me that I have difficulty with the abstract language used in more difficult versions of flaw questions
Someone help! I don't understand how answer A demonstrates sufficiency and necessity confusion. It says "M always cures athlete's foot." Isn't "always" apart of group 2 conditional indicators? So wouldn't answer A be saying that the reporter is concluding the same thing as the scientist?
I had the same confusion but I followed the following logic:
The reporter is saying /athlete's foot cured --> /M which is the same as M --> athlete's foot cured.
Answer choice A is saying that the reporter makes the wrong interpretation of saying that "M always cures athlete's foot" from what the scientist said.
"Always" is the indicator so anything after that is the necessary condition. So in lawgic, you get M --> cure athlete's foot which is what we got initially in the reading. The scientist, on the other hand, is saying that "the only people who whose athlete's foot was cured had been given medication M." The indicator phrase is "the only" which is part of sufficient condition [Group 1]. So the scientist is saying athlete's foot cured --> M. The reporter flipped these around. Hope that makes sense!
Thank you!
my first W of the day thank you jesus
Nailed it. This one was challenging and took me 4 minutes but I did get the right answer.
the way i had A for like 30 seconds but then changed it to D lmao
#feedback I love that these lessons finally account for the time it takes to do the question, blind review, AND watch the video. THANK YOUUUUUU!!!
haha the saga finally ends
Why is flaw lesson so damn longgggg
Nevermind chat.
Damn I got bamboozled.
Picked A and didn't even bother to look at the rest
LOL Same!
I've noticed I am so nervous about answers that even though I get them correct, I am taking way too long to move onto the next question because I am double checking my answer.
Continued exposure to questions will improve your self-confidence. Keep honing your skills and it'll come! :)
So satisfying when you read the first AC and choose it right away. Feeling like it's starting to click on most question types working within time recommendations.
lol @ JY's reaction to the experiment design
I love these
#help it took me 9 mins! I got it right but what am I not understanding right away? what foundational lessons do I need to go back to? please help!!
In my opinion, if you have the tools to get it right, even after several minutes, you are in good shape. I would work on consistently getting questions right in BR, making a log of the ones I get wrong during BR, and focusing on those later.
Once you train your mind to deconstruct the stimulus and question description correctly, you should start increasing in speed.
How long does it take you guys to do these types of questions now. Is it bad if it take me around 1:30 for them?
it took me 47 minutes for this question
I took 0:56 for this question and got it right (first try).
First, I read the question stem and highlighted the keywords. Then, I read the stimulus paying close attention to what the reporter's flaw was (basically going on a mission). Then when I looked at the answer choices, AC A looked perfect. I selected that THEN I scanned the other ones (I was set on A mostly) in case A had some mistake I overlooked that another choice didn't make.
This has been my strategy through the whole curriculum and it has worked thus far for me. As long as your accuracy and reasoning are solid, you should be fine trusting your gut like this.
I mostly struggle with stamina during actual tests (apart from LG), so timing isn't a huge issue for me, but it's still obviously a difficulty (35 minutes is short!).
Depends. If I've just missed a question out of carelessness on a hard section, then I'll take up to 5 minutes to carefully weigh my answer. However, if there is something glaring like this one and the right answer is the first one I read, then I'll just pick it and move on. This one took me about a minute, but I've spent up to 10 minutes unpacking sufficient assumption questions. Taking 1:30 is not bad at all, especially during the curriculum. Maybe you'll want to speed up a bit during the test, but that's not until you have a robust understanding of the question type.
This one took me 1min 11sec, this one I got pretty intuitively, but there are some questions I'll spend 3 or 4 minutes on! I'm not too focused on time right now, I'm more so concerned with getting the answers right and understanding why wrong answers are wrong. Speed will come with practice!
haha it took me 20 minutes. Idk why this question was pretty hard for me.
Focus on getting the answer right- however long that takes when practicing. Understand the logic & thought process, then over time you will naturally get quicker. However, if you don't have the logic down then you will never get them quicker.