These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
@Kevin_Lin Yes, for me, it also happened in the Must Be True video, shortly after you started diagramming, (I think that was question 5?). I still got a lot out of it, but it would have been great to finish it.
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.
Q6 and Q7 were so easy for me, but I struggled with a couple in the middle. Maybe the science questions just throw me off, even though the concepts are the same.
Hi Kevin! This was super super helpful. I've been so stuck with Necessary Assumptions lately. But some takeaways I took from your crash course were that:
Asking: would the author agree with this answer. I think this is a good approach than just the MBT test. MBT test is similar, but it's quite vague. Having a guiding question is easier for me to take and apply to the real test.
Negation test. After watching your crash course, I realised that I haven't been applying negation test in the best and simplest way. I learned from your video that negating Quantifiers and removing NOT is an easier approach than whatever the heck I was doing.
Language shouldn't be the deciding factor. I've been attending the live classes and a lot of people go through the answer choice and say "only", "always", etc is too strong. But as you say, language strength isn't a helpful way to approach analyzing the AC. We can see use language strength to see if Author supports the AC, but language strength alone shouldn't be a deciding factor.
This was super super helpful, and I'm hoping I can take these takeaways and use them to improve my accuracy on these!
Like any other Fast Track lessons, thank you for this! Questions 1-6 were straightforward to me, but not 7. I try to answer them as though timed before Kevin goes through it, so the weakness in ACs in 7th made me think about and look at it more closely compared to the other questions.
This helped me really process what I was doing wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but when doing Sufficient assumption questions, the new concept is in the conclusion and not in the premises. Meanwhile Necessary assumption questions have "new concepts" but here it's known as the "missing piece" and it's found in the premises not in the conclusion
for some reason I do better on necessary assumption question than sufficient assumption questions... I'm just so confused on why necessary assumption makes more sense to me than sufficient. I think I view them as the same? is there a specific difference between them that others have noticed?
@BriannaZuniga That's right. If the negation weakens the argument, that proves the author had to assume that statement. (Because if it weren't true, then the conclusion wouldn't make sense from the premise.)
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
Would greatly appreciate a lesson like this that more broadly goes into the weeds of something like AC (A) vs (D) on #2 -- like an overarching conditional reasoning primer / the way you guys diagram in Kick It Up, etc!
Can somebody explain why answer A on #2 was wrong? I know Kevin said we could find more about that in a different video but I don't know where to find that video.
@charlenehansen I am also struggling as to how A was wrong, and how to be able to answer these questions quickly with not choosing the reverse of the correct answer.
@charlenehansen I think its because A is too broad with "animals" whereas the prompt specified "these animals" in relation to reptiles, which D specifies. A could be correct if the wording/implication of D was changed.
@Aletariel the stimulus states that since they can not make major alterations then they MUST be incapable of complex reasoning. This means that the capability of making major alterations is necessary for the capability of complex reasoning.
alterations -> reasoning
Answer A states that the only way they could be capable of major changes is if they were capable of complex reasoning.
reasoning -> alterations
And that is why Kevin said that A was backwards.
I think I struggled so much with this question because I needed to draw the subset/superset picture and didn't. I've also found myself to struggle with questions about topics related to my undergrad courses like this one.
@charlenehansen I thought that only if conditionals could be diagrammed like A <-> B. I interpreted Answer A to mean major changes <-> complex reasoning. I'm struggling to understand how the complex reasoning is the NC in Answer A and not in Answer D.
@AmyDoval I've run into the same problem, and for me, it has helped to try and differentiate between the language "if and only if" and just "only if." Annoyingly, "only if" is the same part as "then" in a one way conditional. So, "if A, then B" and "A only if B" are equivalent statements.
A good example might be:
if [one is in Texas] then [one is in the United States]
which would be functionally equivalent to:
[one is in Texas] only if [one is in the United States]
the above examples would not be equivalent to the statement
[one is in Texas] if and only if [one is in the United States]
Because biconditional statements, (<->) are always fully reversible while maintaining their meanings, to reverse this would be to say:
[one is in the United States] if and only if [one is in Texas]
which simply isn't true.
In applying this logic to question 2, we can see that the premise we are targeting says something along the lines of:
major changes --> complex reasoning
so when we take the contrapositive, we need an assumption that fits the structure:
complex reasoning --> major changes
Answer A (because it uses the language "only if") is still structured to say "major changes --> complex reasoning" but this functionally says "all animals that can make major changes are capable of complex reasoning" leaving room for other animals that are not capable of making major changes to still be capable of complex reasoning. The statement can only be negated if an animal is capable of making changes but NOT capable of complex thought, and because the author states the premise that reptiles are not capable of making changes, the statement ends up being irrelevant.
Amazing lesson. I have struggled a lot with NA questions on recent prep tests, but I felt the Core Curriculum was not really what I needed to re-review. This high level summary was perfect. After reviewing this video and taking notes on the main lessons, I think I was able to identify the key areas I was struggling with. Thank you very much!
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
82 comments
Kevin, you are my Moses macaque of the LSAT.
@TBlack05 LOL I will follow him into the hot springs of this exam I sure will
These fast track videos have been super helpful. Thank you Kevin.
im scared
question 6 really got me for some reason. i could have sworn it was d. super subtle
imagine he clicked submit on the drill and it said 0%
These lessons are incredibly useful, but there has been an issue with it buffering indefinitely very frequently. Is this happening to anyone else, or is this a me problem?
@Tateclarke24 Yes, I'm having the same issue with the buffering starting in the middle of the explanation for question 6. Frustrating....
@whouse737 Have you encountered this for other videos?
@Kevin_Lin Yes, for me, it also happened in the Must Be True video, shortly after you started diagramming, (I think that was question 5?). I still got a lot out of it, but it would have been great to finish it.
These are the perfect videos for me. I always struggle to stay alert when the explanations are too long or in depth because I understand the basics. These fast-track videos have helped me understand these questions types a lot better. Please keep making these.
Q6 and Q7 were so easy for me, but I struggled with a couple in the middle. Maybe the science questions just throw me off, even though the concepts are the same.
Hi Kevin! This was super super helpful. I've been so stuck with Necessary Assumptions lately. But some takeaways I took from your crash course were that:
Asking: would the author agree with this answer. I think this is a good approach than just the MBT test. MBT test is similar, but it's quite vague. Having a guiding question is easier for me to take and apply to the real test.
Negation test. After watching your crash course, I realised that I haven't been applying negation test in the best and simplest way. I learned from your video that negating Quantifiers and removing NOT is an easier approach than whatever the heck I was doing.
Language shouldn't be the deciding factor. I've been attending the live classes and a lot of people go through the answer choice and say "only", "always", etc is too strong. But as you say, language strength isn't a helpful way to approach analyzing the AC. We can see use language strength to see if Author supports the AC, but language strength alone shouldn't be a deciding factor.
This was super super helpful, and I'm hoping I can take these takeaways and use them to improve my accuracy on these!
@KevinLin'sOldUserName can u let me borrow ur brain for the LSAT pls
Like any other Fast Track lessons, thank you for this! Questions 1-6 were straightforward to me, but not 7. I try to answer them as though timed before Kevin goes through it, so the weakness in ACs in 7th made me think about and look at it more closely compared to the other questions.
This helped me really process what I was doing wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but when doing Sufficient assumption questions, the new concept is in the conclusion and not in the premises. Meanwhile Necessary assumption questions have "new concepts" but here it's known as the "missing piece" and it's found in the premises not in the conclusion
Ahhh yes my biggest weakness
for some reason I do better on necessary assumption question than sufficient assumption questions... I'm just so confused on why necessary assumption makes more sense to me than sufficient. I think I view them as the same? is there a specific difference between them that others have noticed?
I feel that this is my weak suit lol
HOLYYYY question 6 was not it man.
WOW 7 hit me luck a truck, Thank you Kevin, you have been so helpful.
This was incredibly helpful, thank you!!
so if you negate the answer and it weakens the argument, then it is the correct answer?
@BriannaZuniga That's right. If the negation weakens the argument, that proves the author had to assume that statement. (Because if it weren't true, then the conclusion wouldn't make sense from the premise.)
Super helpful!! Please keep making these fast track videos. I feel like they solidify the core curriculum, and are perfect to watch when I need to review the approach to a specific question type at a high level, and not re-watch question specific lessons.
Would greatly appreciate a lesson like this that more broadly goes into the weeds of something like AC (A) vs (D) on #2 -- like an overarching conditional reasoning primer / the way you guys diagram in Kick It Up, etc!
Can somebody explain why answer A on #2 was wrong? I know Kevin said we could find more about that in a different video but I don't know where to find that video.
@charlenehansen I am also struggling as to how A was wrong, and how to be able to answer these questions quickly with not choosing the reverse of the correct answer.
@charlenehansen Have you reviewed the Conditional Logic Module in Foundations lessons?
@Kevin_Lin I recently reviewed "Conditional Logic in 30 Minutes".
@charlenehansen I think its because A is too broad with "animals" whereas the prompt specified "these animals" in relation to reptiles, which D specifies. A could be correct if the wording/implication of D was changed.
@Aletariel the stimulus states that since they can not make major alterations then they MUST be incapable of complex reasoning. This means that the capability of making major alterations is necessary for the capability of complex reasoning.
alterations -> reasoning
Answer A states that the only way they could be capable of major changes is if they were capable of complex reasoning.
reasoning -> alterations
And that is why Kevin said that A was backwards.
I think I struggled so much with this question because I needed to draw the subset/superset picture and didn't. I've also found myself to struggle with questions about topics related to my undergrad courses like this one.
@charlenehansen I thought that only if conditionals could be diagrammed like A <-> B. I interpreted Answer A to mean major changes <-> complex reasoning. I'm struggling to understand how the complex reasoning is the NC in Answer A and not in Answer D.
@AmyDoval I've run into the same problem, and for me, it has helped to try and differentiate between the language "if and only if" and just "only if." Annoyingly, "only if" is the same part as "then" in a one way conditional. So, "if A, then B" and "A only if B" are equivalent statements.
A good example might be:
if [one is in Texas] then [one is in the United States]
which would be functionally equivalent to:
[one is in Texas] only if [one is in the United States]
the above examples would not be equivalent to the statement
[one is in Texas] if and only if [one is in the United States]
Because biconditional statements, (<->) are always fully reversible while maintaining their meanings, to reverse this would be to say:
[one is in the United States] if and only if [one is in Texas]
which simply isn't true.
In applying this logic to question 2, we can see that the premise we are targeting says something along the lines of:
major changes-->complex reasoningso when we take the contrapositive, we need an assumption that fits the structure:
complex reasoning --> major changes
Answer A (because it uses the language "only if") is still structured to say "major changes --> complex reasoning" but this functionally says "all animals that can make major changes are capable of complex reasoning" leaving room for other animals that are not capable of making major changes to still be capable of complex reasoning. The statement can only be negated if an animal is capable of making changes but NOT capable of complex thought, and because the author states the premise that reptiles are not capable of making changes, the statement ends up being irrelevant.
@SierraSilversmith414 This just clicked. Thank you so much!!!!
Amazing lesson. I have struggled a lot with NA questions on recent prep tests, but I felt the Core Curriculum was not really what I needed to re-review. This high level summary was perfect. After reviewing this video and taking notes on the main lessons, I think I was able to identify the key areas I was struggling with. Thank you very much!
These lessons are incredible.
However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.
Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.
I really appreciate these additional lessons.