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?
@AlizaGGG You're right that we don't know if it needs the label, though we don't know whether this is because of other GMO ingredients or other regulations (ie GMOs must be labeled no matter whether consumers care), but we can't conclusively say that they don't need to be labeled just because 1 set of conditions isn't met. The argument is wrong because it definitively states that the crisps don't need to be labeled, but it has incomplete information to be sure about this.
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.
Practice reading convoluted 'bad' writing. . . Modern critical philosophy and/or literary theory could be good practice (This is coming from an English major). Read slowly, though, and try to pay close attention to what is exactly being written.
Reading the questions out loud helps me to catch convoluted language. It slows me down a bit, but my accuracy has increased substantially once I started reading aloud.
Another good option is to read dense books in your free time to become more familiar and comfortable with convoluted language, either non-fiction or fiction with lots of flowery language
try to apply the answer back to its referentials- so ask yourself "what claim?" when it says "the claim" or "what conditions?" when it says "conditions." if it follows the same route of logic + is a legitimate flaw then it is likely the answer
@dsimerly This is a great idea, do you have any specific recs? I have been reading more recently and its definitely helped with RC, but nothing super dense.
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?
This has always been a problem for me! I think it's because I take the harder questions more seriously and am more cautious not to get tricked, then end up messing up the easy ones because I get overly confident and spend less time on them. For me, treating every question equally and reminding myself to not get dangerously confident seems to help :)
Same, this question felt so easy compared to the previous ones. Difficulty on the LSAT is strange. I think part of the problem is that answering these questions inevitably makes us paranoid. When something seems too easy, we assume there must be a trap or trick of some sort
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
Yes, it does thank you! I also used another program to get better at conditional mapping since it wasn't clicking but I now see the indicators! (duh lol)
This is what I did to get it right! There are if thens in both paragraphs.
Principle: upset-->label
Application: /upset-->/label
The application did a mistaken negation. It negated both sides of the arrow without taking the contrapositive:) None of the other answer choices are relevant, but I knew what I was looking for and took a chance on E being correct in saying this, even with the confusing wording. I hope this answers your q. :)
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
If i understand you correctly, you're confused where/how he got the /Upset→/Label. He got it from the application. He was showing how the application was mistaken in translating the principle. The principle was Upset→Label (contrapositive: /Label→/Upset). The application just slapped negations on to both the upset and the label and attempted to justify its conclusion, when it actually made in error in its logic (it forgot to contrapose). JP used their incorrect translation to show how it was incorrect in those answer choices.
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
77 comments
ahhh this one confused me but got it right on the BR
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?
@AlizaGGG ~Labeled = /Labeled (different notation sorry)
@AlizaGGG You're right that we don't know if it needs the label, though we don't know whether this is because of other GMO ingredients or other regulations (ie GMOs must be labeled no matter whether consumers care), but we can't conclusively say that they don't need to be labeled just because 1 set of conditions isn't met. The argument is wrong because it definitively states that the crisps don't need to be labeled, but it has incomplete information to be sure about this.
@LauraByrne that makes sense, thanks
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🙃
@tarena2005104 omg same
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
okay will do
chill gordy
1 minute over but POE saved me
Took me 9 minutes but got it right...
real asf
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.
Practice reading convoluted 'bad' writing. . . Modern critical philosophy and/or literary theory could be good practice (This is coming from an English major). Read slowly, though, and try to pay close attention to what is exactly being written.
Reading the questions out loud helps me to catch convoluted language. It slows me down a bit, but my accuracy has increased substantially once I started reading aloud.
Another good option is to read dense books in your free time to become more familiar and comfortable with convoluted language, either non-fiction or fiction with lots of flowery language
try to apply the answer back to its referentials- so ask yourself "what claim?" when it says "the claim" or "what conditions?" when it says "conditions." if it follows the same route of logic + is a legitimate flaw then it is likely the answer
@dsimerly This is a great idea, do you have any specific recs? I have been reading more recently and its definitely helped with RC, but nothing super dense.
Somehow, I feel like this section is finally making sufficiency and necessity click
I agree, feels like the missing puzzle piece. I actually feel like this could have been put earlier in the planning and have SA and NA after.
the more I get right, the more scared I get :/
This is literally me right now. I have gotten all but 1 right and it is making me more scared.
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?
This has always been a problem for me! I think it's because I take the harder questions more seriously and am more cautious not to get tricked, then end up messing up the easy ones because I get overly confident and spend less time on them. For me, treating every question equally and reminding myself to not get dangerously confident seems to help :)
Same, this question felt so easy compared to the previous ones. Difficulty on the LSAT is strange. I think part of the problem is that answering these questions inevitably makes us paranoid. When something seems too easy, we assume there must be a trap or trick of some sort
Literally only picked E bc it gave me a headache and I figured that’s what the LSAT writers wanted
I've started doing that on flaw questions that confuse me and my accuracy has improved HAHA
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
Yes, it does thank you! I also used another program to get better at conditional mapping since it wasn't clicking but I now see the indicators! (duh lol)
This is what I did to get it right! There are if thens in both paragraphs.
Principle: upset-->label
Application: /upset-->/label
The application did a mistaken negation. It negated both sides of the arrow without taking the contrapositive:) None of the other answer choices are relevant, but I knew what I was looking for and took a chance on E being correct in saying this, even with the confusing wording. I hope this answers your q. :)
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)
agreed
If i understand you correctly, you're confused where/how he got the /Upset→/Label. He got it from the application. He was showing how the application was mistaken in translating the principle. The principle was Upset→Label (contrapositive: /Label→/Upset). The application just slapped negations on to both the upset and the label and attempted to justify its conclusion, when it actually made in error in its logic (it forgot to contrapose). JP used their incorrect translation to show how it was incorrect in those answer choices.