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!
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.
70 comments
Is "provide" a sufficient condition indicator?
Today is winter tomorrow is summer
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