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.
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!
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 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'm a bit confused about the difference between the wording in question 3 v question 4, and why question 4 is treated the same as questions 1/2. Can someone explain why the processes are different even though they're using essentially the same wording?
@Madwar1 Question 3 basically says, "The argument is flawed because it assumes that..."
So the correct answer must be phrased as something the argument assumes (reasons).
But 4 just asks "What's flawed about the argument?"
So the correct answer can be phrased either in terms of what the argument overlooks OR as what the argument assumes. "The argument is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that X is not true" = "The argument assumes that X is true."
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'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.)
Ok, hold on- I'm confused about Q4. I also concluded that I could read the stimulus material through the False Dichotomy lens, but I confidently said D...I can logically understand now, after thinking myself in a circle then realizing why I was wrong, why it was E, but I guess this is for others to avoid the mistake I made?
Follow me through my original thinking, right? So, the conclusion states "grammar books are useless as reference sources for authors." That being said, False Dichotomy, from a previous module, says it's essentially when you assume that there's only two possible options, reasons, or choices for something when, in reality, there may be more.
In the case of Q4, D says "presumes, without justification, that grammar books cannot have any use except as reference sources." While that's inherently a very real possibility, the act of grammar books being used as a reference source was never where the dichotomy lives in. It's either "reference source" or "reference source" since, either way, neither end up using them in the end.
Where the actual two options live is between writing a grammatically correct sentence and not writing a grammatically correct sentence. One doesn't use a grammar book because they never wrote the "what would be" grammatically incorrect sentence down. The other wouldn't use one as, in this scenario, they're certain it's correct and have no need to.
Considering that's where the "real" differing in the scenario is and E, saying "ignores the possibility that there's a middle ground between being sure that a sentence is grammatical and thinking that it is ungrammatical," is the only viable option that explicitly mentions the "grammatical or ungrammatical" nature that would require using or not using a grammar book as a reference source...then E has to, realistically anyway, be the only possible answer.
Yo...did that make any sense? Cause I got to the right answer after initially getting it wrong, I just don't know if my thought process is correct... 🤔
32 comments
I'm voting for Kevin Lin in the next presidential elections
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!
KEVIN LIN YOU TRULLY ROCKKK , REALLY THANKFULL , KEEP IT UPP
These Fast Track instructions will play a major role in helping me gain admission to my top-choice law school.
Very helpful video! It made me realize how important it is to understand what the question stem is asking us to determine
Thank you for this video. I appreciate the valuable info.
4/5 yes sir!
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!
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.
first time acing a fast track!
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 am doing this for Wile E Coyote
For Q4 the second option (Option B) makes no sense to me. Not the actual logic but the sentence itself makes no sense whatsoever.
Thank You! Some flaws are indeed tricky
I'm a bit confused about the difference between the wording in question 3 v question 4, and why question 4 is treated the same as questions 1/2. Can someone explain why the processes are different even though they're using essentially the same wording?
@Madwar1 Question 3 basically says, "The argument is flawed because it assumes that..."
So the correct answer must be phrased as something the argument assumes (reasons).
But 4 just asks "What's flawed about the argument?"
So the correct answer can be phrased either in terms of what the argument overlooks OR as what the argument assumes. "The argument is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that X is not true" = "The argument assumes that X is true."
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'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.)
@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
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
Ok, hold on- I'm confused about Q4. I also concluded that I could read the stimulus material through the False Dichotomy lens, but I confidently said D...I can logically understand now, after thinking myself in a circle then realizing why I was wrong, why it was E, but I guess this is for others to avoid the mistake I made?
Follow me through my original thinking, right? So, the conclusion states "grammar books are useless as reference sources for authors." That being said, False Dichotomy, from a previous module, says it's essentially when you assume that there's only two possible options, reasons, or choices for something when, in reality, there may be more.
In the case of Q4, D says "presumes, without justification, that grammar books cannot have any use except as reference sources." While that's inherently a very real possibility, the act of grammar books being used as a reference source was never where the dichotomy lives in. It's either "reference source" or "reference source" since, either way, neither end up using them in the end.
Where the actual two options live is between writing a grammatically correct sentence and not writing a grammatically correct sentence. One doesn't use a grammar book because they never wrote the "what would be" grammatically incorrect sentence down. The other wouldn't use one as, in this scenario, they're certain it's correct and have no need to.
Considering that's where the "real" differing in the scenario is and E, saying "ignores the possibility that there's a middle ground between being sure that a sentence is grammatical and thinking that it is ungrammatical," is the only viable option that explicitly mentions the "grammatical or ungrammatical" nature that would require using or not using a grammar book as a reference source...then E has to, realistically anyway, be the only possible answer.
Yo...did that make any sense? Cause I got to the right answer after initially getting it wrong, I just don't know if my thought process is correct... 🤔