I'm so glad you laid out the same thought process I had with the stimulus before diving into the answers. I legitimately had no idea what the flaw was and it did not click until I read C.
I picked the correct answer through process of elimination, but I'm not understanding how answer choice 'C' is indisputably correct.
The arguer does not seem concerned with whether the test is reliable at all, but instead is simply concerned with whether there is broad consensus on the known reliability of that test.
I thought of it like a rule application prompt, almost. In order to be used in Court (for criminal cases), the evidence's reliability must be agreed-upon by the scientific community.
In this case, it seems like this is not flawed, I fail to see how the premises don't support the conclusion. It seems like the argument is ironclad in demonstrating how DNA evidence fails to trigger the conclusion which would allow its usage in Court. Just because DNA evidence is seen as reliable, it still fails to meet the conditions needed for the rule to trigger here.
@danielleiebradley834 Ooh, this is a great question - I think I can help explain!
The only info we have about how scientific experts feel about DNA tests is that there is "considerable controversy" about "how reliable these tests are".
The only info we have about allowing evidence in courts is that unless there’s “widespread agreement in the scientific community” about a test’s reliability, it’s “unreasonable for courts to allow evidence based on that test”.
So, we know for sure that there’s considerable controversy among experts about DNA tests.
But… what if there’s also widespread agreement? The argument never rules out this possibility, and that’s why it’s flawed. It basically assumes “considerable controversy” = no “widespread agreement”.
I think it would’ve been helpful for J.Y. to clearly articulate that “considerable controversy” and “widespread agreement” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Because we can’t rule out the possibility that there’s still widespread agreement among these experts, then, based on the second premise (“Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test”), we have no idea whether it’s unreasonable for courts to allow DNA evidence: maybe there’s widespread agreement about it, maybe there’s not. So then, this means that the analyst can’t conclude that courts should not allow DNA evidence.
I can give an example of how this concept applies, in case you find it helpful. Basically, it’s entirely possible that there’s “widespread agreement” in the scientific community that DNA tests are, say, 95%-100% reliable, while at the same time, there’s “considerable controversy” about where exactly their reliability falls on this spectrum. Maybe half the scientists insist these tests are 95%-97% reliable, and half the scientists insist these tests are actually 97%-100% reliable. Maybe it’s hotly debated, and scientists get all up in each other’s faces about it. But, at the end of the day, if the scientists still widely agree that DNA tests are 95%-100% reliable, that means there’s “widespread agreement” despite the “considerable controversy”. And if there’s “widespread agreement,” evidence based on DNA tests would not be unreasonable to use in court. And if that’s the case, then the conclusion of the argument (“courts shouldn’t allow DNA tests”) makes no sense.
when I went through the ACs C made no sense to me as how they can agree on something but then disagree so I didnt pick it and it was the right one ughhhh
I don't know about you guys but I like to imagine that the stimulus is placed Infront of me and all my friends in a casual setting and we all make fun of the argument and say it sucks because it forget _. Makes this unit super entertaining and so far works really well LOL.
I got this one but anyone else consistently finding 3/5 difficulty questions to be sometimes most difficult? I think I overthink them the most since they sit somewhere right in the middle of perceived difficulty. In my practice tests my wrong answers are 3/5s & 5/5s. yiiiiiikies
I would have struggled so much w this one but I just read the LSAT Dragon chapter on False Assumption flaws and when I read the question stem, I knew right away I had to do POE on the ACs and pick the one that if true, would strengthen the arg. def recommend that book ya'll its been a gaaameee changer. 7sage helps me re- enforce concepts and practice but LSAT dragon has game changing tips and explanations
When should we be trying to diagram the logic, and when should we be going with our gut feeling? My gut feeling is usually correct, and diagramming the logic slows me down, but I've heard that you need to be diagramming in order to break into the highest level of scoring.
You don't need to diagram if you understand the argument. Diagramming is a tool to help us when the argument is so complicated that we are struggling to understand it well or efficiently. It's also a tool to use if we're prone to reading conditional statements backwards. On any given section, high-scorers will probably diagram ~1-2 questions. This doesn't mean they're not "diagramming" in their minds though. For example, if I see a basic "X only if Y" statement -- I'm going to visualize that as "If X --> Y" and understand that this means X is sufficient for Y, and Y is necessary for X, even if I don't draw anything on paper.
I picked C after POE but still do not understand why it is correct. The condition was that there has to be widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is. C says experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are. The condition was clear in saying they have to agree about how reliable they are, so it does not leave room for the assumption C is stating. To me it feels like C is directly contradicting a premise. If the premise simply said they have to agree period, then I understand how C would be correct in making the distinction between agreement in general and agreement about the specific level of reliability. Can someone please help?
The point of this question is to figure out how the logic is flawed. Try to see what the author is overlooking. The fact that the premise is saying it should not allow for C is why it is flawed. If one scientist thinks it's 99% reliable and another thinks it is 98% reliable they do not agree how reliable it is, but it is indeed reliable. I got this question right because my thinking was the flipped answer. For example, if all scientists agree that the DNA test is extremely unreliable, it should be allowed in court just because they all agreed how reliable it is. Idk if this is right thinking but it got me there.
I understand why C is correct but it seems like it may require you to read something into the stimulus. The argument presented is simply that there must be widespread agreement about the reliability of the DNA tests in order for them to be admissible in court. That doesn't require the controversy to be as varied as the explanation for this answer choice suggests. Even if the difference in how the scientists assess reliability is only 98% vs. 99%, the argument is just saying that there cannot be widespread disagreement however large or small. Can someone clear this up for me?
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
57 comments
Icarus flew too close to the sun tonight
Chopped liver
God these questions are so hit or miss I feel like I'm going crazy
That felt really hard. I understood as soon as I answered A that no real information on how reliable DNA evidence is was a red flag.
They be trynna get me with that grammar :>
Would this be an example of a straw man fallacy? Building an argument on skewed data.
I'm so glad you laid out the same thought process I had with the stimulus before diving into the answers. I legitimately had no idea what the flaw was and it did not click until I read C.
maybe im just not cut out for this shit man
@RaymanMartinez me every time i get a 0% on actual take and 0% on BR
this question is so dumb
Oh this one did not click for me at all. Chose A and then B in BR.
this one sucked
I picked the correct answer through process of elimination, but I'm not understanding how answer choice 'C' is indisputably correct.
The arguer does not seem concerned with whether the test is reliable at all, but instead is simply concerned with whether there is broad consensus on the known reliability of that test.
I thought of it like a rule application prompt, almost. In order to be used in Court (for criminal cases), the evidence's reliability must be agreed-upon by the scientific community.
In this case, it seems like this is not flawed, I fail to see how the premises don't support the conclusion. It seems like the argument is ironclad in demonstrating how DNA evidence fails to trigger the conclusion which would allow its usage in Court. Just because DNA evidence is seen as reliable, it still fails to meet the conditions needed for the rule to trigger here.
#help
@danielleiebradley834 Ooh, this is a great question - I think I can help explain!
The only info we have about how scientific experts feel about DNA tests is that there is "considerable controversy" about "how reliable these tests are".
The only info we have about allowing evidence in courts is that unless there’s “widespread agreement in the scientific community” about a test’s reliability, it’s “unreasonable for courts to allow evidence based on that test”.
So, we know for sure that there’s considerable controversy among experts about DNA tests.
But… what if there’s also widespread agreement? The argument never rules out this possibility, and that’s why it’s flawed. It basically assumes “considerable controversy” = no “widespread agreement”.
I think it would’ve been helpful for J.Y. to clearly articulate that “considerable controversy” and “widespread agreement” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Because we can’t rule out the possibility that there’s still widespread agreement among these experts, then, based on the second premise (“Unless there is widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is, it is unreasonable for the courts to allow evidence based on that test”), we have no idea whether it’s unreasonable for courts to allow DNA evidence: maybe there’s widespread agreement about it, maybe there’s not. So then, this means that the analyst can’t conclude that courts should not allow DNA evidence.
I can give an example of how this concept applies, in case you find it helpful. Basically, it’s entirely possible that there’s “widespread agreement” in the scientific community that DNA tests are, say, 95%-100% reliable, while at the same time, there’s “considerable controversy” about where exactly their reliability falls on this spectrum. Maybe half the scientists insist these tests are 95%-97% reliable, and half the scientists insist these tests are actually 97%-100% reliable. Maybe it’s hotly debated, and scientists get all up in each other’s faces about it. But, at the end of the day, if the scientists still widely agree that DNA tests are 95%-100% reliable, that means there’s “widespread agreement” despite the “considerable controversy”. And if there’s “widespread agreement,” evidence based on DNA tests would not be unreasonable to use in court. And if that’s the case, then the conclusion of the argument (“courts shouldn’t allow DNA tests”) makes no sense.
I hope this helps!
@ananasanonyme You are amazing, thank you!!
@ananasanonyme Extremely helpful, thank you!!
35 secs under😌
picked C first, didnt rlly understand it so I just picked A
I saw someone say to trust how u mentally got to an answer but if I don't completely get it, I just assume I'm wrong ://
when I went through the ACs C made no sense to me as how they can agree on something but then disagree so I didnt pick it and it was the right one ughhhh
14 secs under
I'm in a one sided competition with you to see who can get the correct answer faster (ur way faster lol)
I don't know about you guys but I like to imagine that the stimulus is placed Infront of me and all my friends in a casual setting and we all make fun of the argument and say it sucks because it forget _. Makes this unit super entertaining and so far works really well LOL.
Best strategy for me seems to be trying to predict the flaw, but being open to the ACs.
I got this one but anyone else consistently finding 3/5 difficulty questions to be sometimes most difficult? I think I overthink them the most since they sit somewhere right in the middle of perceived difficulty. In my practice tests my wrong answers are 3/5s & 5/5s. yiiiiiikies
yessss sometimes I get level 4/5 right super fast and it be a whole bunch of 3/5 wrong like wtf lmao
I would have struggled so much w this one but I just read the LSAT Dragon chapter on False Assumption flaws and when I read the question stem, I knew right away I had to do POE on the ACs and pick the one that if true, would strengthen the arg. def recommend that book ya'll its been a gaaameee changer. 7sage helps me re- enforce concepts and practice but LSAT dragon has game changing tips and explanations
Isn't "Unless" a necessary condition indicator? Why is it placed in the sufficient condition when you diagram?
Unless is Negate, sufficient
When should we be trying to diagram the logic, and when should we be going with our gut feeling? My gut feeling is usually correct, and diagramming the logic slows me down, but I've heard that you need to be diagramming in order to break into the highest level of scoring.
Thank you, Kevin!
You don't need to diagram if you understand the argument. Diagramming is a tool to help us when the argument is so complicated that we are struggling to understand it well or efficiently. It's also a tool to use if we're prone to reading conditional statements backwards. On any given section, high-scorers will probably diagram ~1-2 questions. This doesn't mean they're not "diagramming" in their minds though. For example, if I see a basic "X only if Y" statement -- I'm going to visualize that as "If X --> Y" and understand that this means X is sufficient for Y, and Y is necessary for X, even if I don't draw anything on paper.
I picked C after POE but still do not understand why it is correct. The condition was that there has to be widespread agreement in the scientific community about how reliable a certain test is. C says experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are. The condition was clear in saying they have to agree about how reliable they are, so it does not leave room for the assumption C is stating. To me it feels like C is directly contradicting a premise. If the premise simply said they have to agree period, then I understand how C would be correct in making the distinction between agreement in general and agreement about the specific level of reliability. Can someone please help?
The point of this question is to figure out how the logic is flawed. Try to see what the author is overlooking. The fact that the premise is saying it should not allow for C is why it is flawed. If one scientist thinks it's 99% reliable and another thinks it is 98% reliable they do not agree how reliable it is, but it is indeed reliable. I got this question right because my thinking was the flipped answer. For example, if all scientists agree that the DNA test is extremely unreliable, it should be allowed in court just because they all agreed how reliable it is. Idk if this is right thinking but it got me there.
I understand why C is correct but it seems like it may require you to read something into the stimulus. The argument presented is simply that there must be widespread agreement about the reliability of the DNA tests in order for them to be admissible in court. That doesn't require the controversy to be as varied as the explanation for this answer choice suggests. Even if the difference in how the scientists assess reliability is only 98% vs. 99%, the argument is just saying that there cannot be widespread disagreement however large or small. Can someone clear this up for me?
.