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?
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!
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.
17 comments
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?
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!