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.
@jessverpez I have a more in depth comment on my profile, but... Imagine a peasant and a ruler. Let's just say the peasant said.
Peasant: The only clothes I own are green.
So if you find green clothes in the wild, they may belong to the peasant. Now let's pretend the peasant didn't say that. Instead, the ruler said.
Ruler: Only clothes I own are green.
If you find green clothes in the wild, you know they are the ruler's.
I used different roles for assisting in the demonstration, but if you flipped the roles for who says the lines, then what we conclude from what they say will still make sense.
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?
I'm understanding the questions when JY goes through them, but still have a hard time going through the ACs when I do the questions on my own. Does anyone have any tips/strategies/advice for thinking about sufficiency/necessary confusion for these questions? #help (Added by admin)
I'd suggest removing the timing aspect when you recognize conditional relationships in the stimulus. Map out the relationship and then map each answer choice. As you get more and more aware and comfortable with writing this down, you'll begin to be able to mentally map it out.
Ultimately, if you're not currently able to mentally do this, you likely need more practice at developing a core foundation. To develop this skill into a habit, remove the timing and work on one thing at a time. Your speed will improve as your skillset improves. Don't rush it! Quality over quantity.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
#help#help Wait a minute... "the only" is sufficient (group one)? I do not have that in my notes. I took "the only" to be the same as only (necessary, group two). Can anyone explain why "the only" is sufficient (group one)? 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?
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.
@WendellAdom There was no group in the study that did not take either. The reporter was referring to the study of two groups; one that took only M and the other that took only N
66 comments
YEAH WELL WHAT IF THE ATHLETES FOOT CURED ITSELF
Lol at the reporter should have signed up for 7 sage lol!
Picked A and didn't even bother to look at the rest
LOL Same!
#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
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.
@jessverpez I have a more in depth comment on my profile, but... Imagine a peasant and a ruler. Let's just say the peasant said.
Peasant: The only clothes I own are green.
So if you find green clothes in the wild, they may belong to the peasant. Now let's pretend the peasant didn't say that. Instead, the ruler said.
Ruler: Only clothes I own are green.
If you find green clothes in the wild, you know they are the ruler's.
I used different roles for assisting in the demonstration, but if you flipped the roles for who says the lines, then what we conclude from what they say will still make sense.
@MajorTom it is only until i read your comment that i finally, clearly saw the difference between only, and the only in this context. THANK YOU!
Nevermind chat.
my first W of the day thank you jesus
This specific question has proved to me that I have difficulty with the abstract language used in more difficult versions of flaw questions
Why is flaw lesson so damn longgggg
This questions are numbered the first 15 :) this one is #11.... which means we got 1 minute to answer this somehow. May God be with us
Nailed it. This one was challenging and took me 4 minutes but I did get the right answer.
#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 ◡̈
@oxford_comma THANK YOU! Genuinely where I was going cross eyed
Damn I got bamboozled.
I'm understanding the questions when JY goes through them, but still have a hard time going through the ACs when I do the questions on my own. Does anyone have any tips/strategies/advice for thinking about sufficiency/necessary confusion for these questions? #help (Added by admin)
I'd suggest removing the timing aspect when you recognize conditional relationships in the stimulus. Map out the relationship and then map each answer choice. As you get more and more aware and comfortable with writing this down, you'll begin to be able to mentally map it out.
Ultimately, if you're not currently able to mentally do this, you likely need more practice at developing a core foundation. To develop this skill into a habit, remove the timing and work on one thing at a time. Your speed will improve as your skillset improves. Don't rush it! Quality over quantity.
thanks for the advice!! you're right, I went back and did some review and realized i was mixing up invalid argument forms.
good luck on ur study journey!!
yes !!!!!!
I knew only and always were synonymous, why I second guessed myself? no clue
the way i had A for like 30 seconds but then changed it to D lmao
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
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!).
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.
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.
haha it took me 20 minutes. Idk why this question was pretty hard for me.
#help#help Wait a minute... "the only" is sufficient (group one)? I do not have that in my notes. I took "the only" to be the same as only (necessary, group two). Can anyone explain why "the only" is sufficient (group one)? Thank you! :)
"The only" is a sufficient logical indicator.
"Only, only when, only where, only the" are necessary logical indicators.
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.
well that sucks to hear. thx for letting us know
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.
Why was D Wrong?
@WendellAdom There was no group in the study that did not take either. The reporter was referring to the study of two groups; one that took only M and the other that took only N