If you came to Fast Track because you're on the Minimal study plan, but a lot of what's in the Fast Track lessons aren't really making sense, then that's often a sign you might want to consider studying for a longer period of time so you can complete the Accelerated or Balanced study plan.
I cannot seem to comprehend #5 in the way it "overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it." The stimulus never talks about anything necessary/sufficient, and outright says it does not promote political freedom. How is this the right answer? Everything clicked for me but this one.
@RainaLedbetter I made sense of it by treating it like a weakening question. If we assume the stem is true then: Democracies promote political freedom without being necessary or sufficient to produce it itself. Then, it would be possible for democracies to both promote political freedom but also be oppressive. Which would weaken the argument that democracies do not produce political freedom simply because there has been historical examples of democracies that have been oppressive.
I just want to say how much these fast track videos are significantly more effective to me than the full modules!
Full modules has a lot of abstract concepts that my brain cannot retain. In comparison, going through the "lessons" via questions directly makes immediate connection between the logic concept and practical use.
I feel like my biggest struggle at this point is getting caught up on time. I got 5/5 right, but took a little longer than the "target" time on the drill. I think this has also impacted my scores on my PrepTests. Is drilling just the best way to improve this time issue, or is there something else I can be doing to improve that?
@elysestraka Depends on how you're currently approaching questions I think. Writing a lot down on scratch paper? Using the highlighting tool a lot? Diagramming? Going back and reading the stimulus multiple times to get a good understanding? Maybe even reading the stimulus too slow on the first pass?
If any of these yell out to you as what may be causing some extra time on each question, they are good places to start seeing where you can mentally start improving on time. Whether that is doing more "mental math" instead of highlighting and writing things down, or improving your reading skills to understand your stimulus on the first pass. Or even the "shallow dip" method talked about in the parallel flaw section to eliminate answers faster off the bat.
I'm a little hung up on the use of language in option C as part of question 3. Particularly, the word "disprove" is throwing me off. The stimulus states he "never refuted." How are "disprove" and "never refuted" used interchangeably in this context? Wouldn't "disproving" require Smith to provide evidence that completely extinguishes that reality as opposed to simply not expressing disagreement? Their connotational differences make it confusing especially as we are advised to watch out for extreme language in these lessons.
@gc2005 "refute" means "disprove" -- so when the author says Smith "never refuted" the testimony, that's equivalent to Smith "never disproved" the testimony
I'm kinda confused as to why we need to check for flaws between intermediate conclusion and premises AND the Main conclusion and intermediate conclusion. (Kevin says that @ 20:08). Is looking at flaws between the premises and main conclusion not enough?
@saulgoodman13 You'll definitely see some Flaw questions where the correct answer is about a flaw between the premise and the intermediate conclusion. It's not common, but you will see one if you do enough PrepTests.
(You'll also see Strengthen/Weaken/Necessary Assumption where the correct answer relates to a gap between P and IC.)
It seems that the link for the drill needs to be updated. When I click it, it shows the drill for Method of Reasoning, not the drill for Flaw. Thank you!
25 comments
Please whenever he says if we do not understand the Fast track, we can go watch the other video, where can i search for the videos?
@RejoiceAdewale You'll want to go through our Lesson Library:https://7sage.com/u/usr_02xU3hBSRMEWCSzH75UIkA/lessons/foundations
If you came to Fast Track because you're on the Minimal study plan, but a lot of what's in the Fast Track lessons aren't really making sense, then that's often a sign you might want to consider studying for a longer period of time so you can complete the Accelerated or Balanced study plan.
@Kevin_Lin Thank you Kevin
I cannot seem to comprehend #5 in the way it "overlooks the possibility that democracy promotes freedom without being necessary or sufficient by itself to produce it." The stimulus never talks about anything necessary/sufficient, and outright says it does not promote political freedom. How is this the right answer? Everything clicked for me but this one.
@RainaLedbetter I made sense of it by treating it like a weakening question. If we assume the stem is true then: Democracies promote political freedom without being necessary or sufficient to produce it itself. Then, it would be possible for democracies to both promote political freedom but also be oppressive. Which would weaken the argument that democracies do not produce political freedom simply because there has been historical examples of democracies that have been oppressive.
@elcopeland Thank you!
I just want to say how much these fast track videos are significantly more effective to me than the full modules!
Full modules has a lot of abstract concepts that my brain cannot retain. In comparison, going through the "lessons" via questions directly makes immediate connection between the logic concept and practical use.
Thank you, Kevin!
I feel like my biggest struggle at this point is getting caught up on time. I got 5/5 right, but took a little longer than the "target" time on the drill. I think this has also impacted my scores on my PrepTests. Is drilling just the best way to improve this time issue, or is there something else I can be doing to improve that?
@elysestraka Depends on how you're currently approaching questions I think. Writing a lot down on scratch paper? Using the highlighting tool a lot? Diagramming? Going back and reading the stimulus multiple times to get a good understanding? Maybe even reading the stimulus too slow on the first pass?
If any of these yell out to you as what may be causing some extra time on each question, they are good places to start seeing where you can mentally start improving on time. Whether that is doing more "mental math" instead of highlighting and writing things down, or improving your reading skills to understand your stimulus on the first pass. Or even the "shallow dip" method talked about in the parallel flaw section to eliminate answers faster off the bat.
These Fast Track instructions will play a major role in helping me gain admission to my top-choice law school.
I'm a little hung up on the use of language in option C as part of question 3. Particularly, the word "disprove" is throwing me off. The stimulus states he "never refuted." How are "disprove" and "never refuted" used interchangeably in this context? Wouldn't "disproving" require Smith to provide evidence that completely extinguishes that reality as opposed to simply not expressing disagreement? Their connotational differences make it confusing especially as we are advised to watch out for extreme language in these lessons.
@gc2005 "refute" means "disprove" -- so when the author says Smith "never refuted" the testimony, that's equivalent to Smith "never disproved" the testimony
I'm voting for Kevin Lin in the next presidential elections
4/5 yes sir!
Very helpful video! It made me realize how important it is to understand what the question stem is asking us to determine
I'm kinda confused as to why we need to check for flaws between intermediate conclusion and premises AND the Main conclusion and intermediate conclusion. (Kevin says that @ 20:08). Is looking at flaws between the premises and main conclusion not enough?
@saulgoodman13 You'll definitely see some Flaw questions where the correct answer is about a flaw between the premise and the intermediate conclusion. It's not common, but you will see one if you do enough PrepTests.
(You'll also see Strengthen/Weaken/Necessary Assumption where the correct answer relates to a gap between P and IC.)
@Kevin_Lin Ok thank you, so takeaway is to (if you have time) break down all the parts in the stimulus to see if the flaw is there
KEVIN LIN YOU TRULLY ROCKKK , REALLY THANKFULL , KEEP IT UPP
Thank you for this video. I appreciate the valuable info.
Where is the list of flaws that you mentioned in the first minute of the video? You said it would be linked below but I dont see a link. Thanks!
@futurelawyerhopefully Turns out it's linked above (d'oh!) in the summary: https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/flaw-or-descriptive-weakening-questions/argument-flaw-cheat-sheet
@Kevin_Lin thank you veru helpful with this link
It seems that the link for the drill needs to be updated. When I click it, it shows the drill for Method of Reasoning, not the drill for Flaw. Thank you!
@alicia-b Thanks, it's fixed!