application makes the invalid argument flaw of denying or negating the sufficient condition. this yields no valid conclusions, so on the hunt for an AC that aligns with my prediction
A. author never makes any set to superset or specific to general jumps, or more specifically, any claims about consumers of a food representing consumers in general. author is specifically taking a principle and applying it (incorrectly) to to a particular instance
B. this has nothing to do with the structure of the argument; whether they're safe for human production or not is irrelevant
C. never makes any value judgements. correct me if im wrong, but had the application said "crackly crisps SHOULD not be ..." this would be a better answer #help
I choose A so confidently, I see now how that was wrong but I dont see how E was right.
How I read the stim is that the GMO does not trigger the rule of applying the label, so for GMO specifically in that product, it is not triggered and the obligation to label the product does not occur. That doesn't mean the product shouldn't be labeled for other ingredients/reasons. So we just dont know if it needs the label overall.
I think I am confusing need not be labeled with not need to be labeled. NEED NOT is a negative ~Labeled, while NOT NEED is inconclusive?
Did anybody else make the same error? or have any insights as to why my interpretations was wrong?
I hate the feeling of being left with a singular answer but not being eble to tell myself why the answer is the correct one, which is exactly what happened in the cold run and the blind review *crying emoji
Ik we go over the different wording types, but is there anything else I can do to prepare for this convoluted language? I knew the answer but I felt like it was hardest to understand what exactly answer choice E was saying.
I'm thoroughly upset that the "harder" questions usually come easier to me than the simpler ones. If I can discover this disconnect, I think I'm golden.
Does anyone have experience with tutors being able to hone in on what exactly you're missing?
So I got this correct, But I wasn't sure how to map the Application out correctly? There are no indicators so I couldn't tell if it was confusing sufficient/necessary. I just assumed it was because of the lesson. Would a deeper explanation of this please
Oddly, the wording of answer E was easier for me to make sense of than the use of sufficiency and necessity. I'm going to go back and review those lessons at this point lol
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.
76 comments
application makes the invalid argument flaw of denying or negating the sufficient condition. this yields no valid conclusions, so on the hunt for an AC that aligns with my prediction
A. author never makes any set to superset or specific to general jumps, or more specifically, any claims about consumers of a food representing consumers in general. author is specifically taking a principle and applying it (incorrectly) to to a particular instance
B. this has nothing to do with the structure of the argument; whether they're safe for human production or not is irrelevant
C. never makes any value judgements. correct me if im wrong, but had the application said "crackly crisps SHOULD not be ..." this would be a better answer #help
D. author doesn't make this assumption
E. CORRECT, matches my prediction
Whoever wrote AC E, Karma is coming for you.
#feedback Fire me up! may have taken 1min over time but this was not a question I was getting correct 2 months ago!
I choose A so confidently, I see now how that was wrong but I dont see how E was right.
How I read the stim is that the GMO does not trigger the rule of applying the label, so for GMO specifically in that product, it is not triggered and the obligation to label the product does not occur. That doesn't mean the product shouldn't be labeled for other ingredients/reasons. So we just dont know if it needs the label overall.
I think I am confusing need not be labeled with not need to be labeled. NEED NOT is a negative ~Labeled, while NOT NEED is inconclusive?
Did anybody else make the same error? or have any insights as to why my interpretations was wrong?
Principle: ingredients cause upset --> should label
application: /causes upset --> /need label
FLAW:
contrapositive of the principle is: /should label --> /upset
instead the application negates the sufficient condition (causes upset) and then mistakenely negates the necessary condition (should label)
the principle doesn't tell us anything about what we should do if an ingredient would not cause upset
for this one i got it right and I feel like having answer choice B was helpful in steering me back to correlations and causes and such
Why’d this one click for me?? The level 1 Qs made me crash out🙃
I saw the word absence and that was the word I was looking for so I said screw it why not
damn this one sucked for me
I hate the feeling of being left with a singular answer but not being eble to tell myself why the answer is the correct one, which is exactly what happened in the cold run and the blind review *crying emoji
9 secs under
1 minute over but POE saved me
Took me 9 minutes but got it right...
Ik we go over the different wording types, but is there anything else I can do to prepare for this convoluted language? I knew the answer but I felt like it was hardest to understand what exactly answer choice E was saying.
Somehow, I feel like this section is finally making sufficiency and necessity click
the more I get right, the more scared I get :/
guys i guess i really am learning cos i saw E and immediately knew it was right :D
I'm thoroughly upset that the "harder" questions usually come easier to me than the simpler ones. If I can discover this disconnect, I think I'm golden.
Does anyone have experience with tutors being able to hone in on what exactly you're missing?
Literally only picked E bc it gave me a headache and I figured that’s what the LSAT writers wanted
I GOT THIS ONE CORRECT YAYYYY. just redeemed myself from all the other flops I had for this lesson of formal flaws
So I got this correct, But I wasn't sure how to map the Application out correctly? There are no indicators so I couldn't tell if it was confusing sufficient/necessary. I just assumed it was because of the lesson. Would a deeper explanation of this please
I literally shouted “yes!” after getting the answer right because I have been struggling with these so badly and a lvl 4 question is a huge win.
Oddly, the wording of answer E was easier for me to make sense of than the use of sufficiency and necessity. I'm going to go back and review those lessons at this point lol
#feedback #help: explanation failed to explain in detail how you mapped the second clause of AC E into /Upset -> /Label
(we are still learning conditional logic; at least, I expect the explanation to explain how a complex conditional statement like AC E is mapped)
sigh im going to bed