This stimulus is having an identity crisis. It wants to be a causal and conditional argument at the same time. I managed to get the answer right, but mostly through POE. Is there a way to solve this using strictly causal logic?
I have written down the two step piecemeal analysis test of the correct answer being descriptively accurate and describing flawed reasoning and geld every answer to that test and it has increased me getting correct answers dramatically with flaw questions. Just looking at it has been a huge help because I am able to mentally apply the test to each answer choice.
Mapping things out and writing things out helps me SO much. It is adding time, so I don't know how to feel about that, but I'm happy that I'm getting things right now!
The way I wrote this out made me choose the wrong answer cuz I was looking at change and not harsh C as the sufficient statement, but I'm not sure how what I diagrammed is wrong?
man, i've gotten so good at getting my answer choices down to two, between which one of them will be the right answer but i still struggle with getting the correct answer choice
I feel dumb asking this but whenever answer choices say that something takes something for granted, can we just replace that phrase with assume? Like are those synonymous?
#feedback I think the time estimates in this section might be inaccurate? The videos are shorter than the time estimates in the syllabus. Just helps to manage my study schedule, thanks!
#help I am understanding and diagramming these questions correctly and can understand that the flaw is switching up sufficiency and necessity. But the way that the answers choices are worded when they are in the general format has been so confusing for me, any recommendations on how I can get a better grasp on understanding the wording for these?
Okay, I don't know if anyone else really struggled with grasping this one, but I did. I think the diagramming is what kinda confused me here, so if anyone is also a lil lost, here's how I explained it to myself. I chose C at first, so I also included my reasoning for why C is ultimately wrong.
So to break down the passage, we first find out that change requires a motive, so we can write:
(1) change → motive
Then we find out that unpleasant criticism provides a motive. The "provides" part confused me at first because I couldn't tell what that really meant (sufficiency? necessity???), but then I realized that "provides" is kinda equivalent to "is a form of." Like if you say that tea provides you with stress relief, then tea is a form of stress relief, or tea = stress relief. So in other words, we find out that unpleasant criticism is a form of a motive. We can write:
(2) unpleasant criticism = motive
And then we find out that harsh criticism is unpleasant criticism. So we can write:
(3) harsh criticism = unpleasant criticism
This means that we can connect (2) and (3) and say:
unpleasant criticism = harsh criticism = motive
which, as stated in the passage, can be shortened to:
harsh criticism = motive
Awesome, so harsh criticism is a type of motive. Then, in the last sentence of the stimulus, the counselor just goes ahead and says that because of all this, only harsh criticism can cause a person to change. So:
(4) change → motive → harsh criticism
This is where the problem lies, because the counselor says that harsh criticism - which is sufficient to being a motive because harsh criticism provides motivation - is actually necessary for motivation. It's like we're downgrading harsh criticism - it used to be sufficient to a motive because if you got harsh criticism, that meant you got a motive. But now it's been downgraded to being necessary for a motive, which means that harsh criticism alone will never be enough on its own to create a motive (you need harsh criticism AND a pat on the back or something). And that's just simply not what we said in (1) (2) and (3). This diagramming might not be perfect because I know equal signs aren't awesome to use here, but I think it conceptually captures the right idea and using the equal signs just felt more clear to me than having backwards and forwards arrows goin on.
C is close, but wrong. The passage just simply never says C. I originally chose C because I was so lost in the sauce of diagramming that I thought it was a safe bet, but in reality, there's nothing in the stimulus that implies that everyone who is motivated to change will change. All we say is that change → motive, but by motive being necessary rather than sufficient, we acknowledged that not everyone who is motivated to change will actually achieve change.
7
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.
68 comments
ONLY ONLY ONLY
I find the best way to think about sufficiency necessity confusions is to simply write it as.
Enough versus Must/Needed/Required
A: Infers that something that is enough to provide a motive is Required to provide a motive.
Finally getting better at spotting sufficiency necessity confusions correct
Need to stop second guessing myself
Finally stopped second guessing myself and stuck with my initial choice
This stimulus is having an identity crisis. It wants to be a causal and conditional argument at the same time. I managed to get the answer right, but mostly through POE. Is there a way to solve this using strictly causal logic?
C'est le plus ancien du livre !!!!
Would "unpleasant criticism → motive" be the same as "motive ← unpleasant criticism?"
exactly a minute over, but we ball. A was chosen, A was correct
im super good at getting it down to two them marking the right answer then second guessing myself and marking the wrong one
Drifted towards A automatically but picked C because i didn't understand why I drifted towards A....
le sigh.... we cringe on....
Im legolas
I have written down the two step piecemeal analysis test of the correct answer being descriptively accurate and describing flawed reasoning and geld every answer to that test and it has increased me getting correct answers dramatically with flaw questions. Just looking at it has been a huge help because I am able to mentally apply the test to each answer choice.
Mapping things out and writing things out helps me SO much. It is adding time, so I don't know how to feel about that, but I'm happy that I'm getting things right now!
Can some one explain C better? I think the formal logic is that
IF change THEN motive.
Just because we have this statement, c should be right cause no where can we say that if motive then change at all, which is what c is saying
I wrote this out as:
change →motive
harsh c →UC→motive
harsh C→motive
-----
conc: change →harsh C
The way I wrote this out made me choose the wrong answer cuz I was looking at change and not harsh C as the sufficient statement, but I'm not sure how what I diagrammed is wrong?
man, i've gotten so good at getting my answer choices down to two, between which one of them will be the right answer but i still struggle with getting the correct answer choice
I feel dumb asking this but whenever answer choices say that something takes something for granted, can we just replace that phrase with assume? Like are those synonymous?
#feedback I think the time estimates in this section might be inaccurate? The videos are shorter than the time estimates in the syllabus. Just helps to manage my study schedule, thanks!
someone explain why C is wrong.
I had the right answer but then changed it last second because i get nervous when the ac talks about sufficient and necessity
i cant get any high priority answers correct ):!!!!!
finally got this one right
#help I am understanding and diagramming these questions correctly and can understand that the flaw is switching up sufficiency and necessity. But the way that the answers choices are worded when they are in the general format has been so confusing for me, any recommendations on how I can get a better grasp on understanding the wording for these?
Okay, I don't know if anyone else really struggled with grasping this one, but I did. I think the diagramming is what kinda confused me here, so if anyone is also a lil lost, here's how I explained it to myself. I chose C at first, so I also included my reasoning for why C is ultimately wrong.
So to break down the passage, we first find out that change requires a motive, so we can write:
(1) change → motive
Then we find out that unpleasant criticism provides a motive. The "provides" part confused me at first because I couldn't tell what that really meant (sufficiency? necessity???), but then I realized that "provides" is kinda equivalent to "is a form of." Like if you say that tea provides you with stress relief, then tea is a form of stress relief, or tea = stress relief. So in other words, we find out that unpleasant criticism is a form of a motive. We can write:
(2) unpleasant criticism = motive
And then we find out that harsh criticism is unpleasant criticism. So we can write:
(3) harsh criticism = unpleasant criticism
This means that we can connect (2) and (3) and say:
unpleasant criticism = harsh criticism = motive
which, as stated in the passage, can be shortened to:
harsh criticism = motive
Awesome, so harsh criticism is a type of motive. Then, in the last sentence of the stimulus, the counselor just goes ahead and says that because of all this, only harsh criticism can cause a person to change. So:
(4) change → motive → harsh criticism
This is where the problem lies, because the counselor says that harsh criticism - which is sufficient to being a motive because harsh criticism provides motivation - is actually necessary for motivation. It's like we're downgrading harsh criticism - it used to be sufficient to a motive because if you got harsh criticism, that meant you got a motive. But now it's been downgraded to being necessary for a motive, which means that harsh criticism alone will never be enough on its own to create a motive (you need harsh criticism AND a pat on the back or something). And that's just simply not what we said in (1) (2) and (3). This diagramming might not be perfect because I know equal signs aren't awesome to use here, but I think it conceptually captures the right idea and using the equal signs just felt more clear to me than having backwards and forwards arrows goin on.
C is close, but wrong. The passage just simply never says C. I originally chose C because I was so lost in the sauce of diagramming that I thought it was a safe bet, but in reality, there's nothing in the stimulus that implies that everyone who is motivated to change will change. All we say is that change → motive, but by motive being necessary rather than sufficient, we acknowledged that not everyone who is motivated to change will actually achieve change.