Reading the question actually made me cackle a bit, like who tf would make the argument that almost everyone in the country wants to be a youtuber because a lot of their friends wants to be a youtuber?! Needed this.
@jansenbienmbelarmino I just did the same thing. Were you able to get past these second guess instances as you progressed through the curriculum and took more PT's?
#feedback #help. where do we learn about circular reasoning? I know the term but I feel like we are just supposed to understand it. is there a 7sage lesson that goes over this?
@AlizaGGG Circular reasoning is when an argument presupposes its own truth. "Donald Trump is a good leader, because he is President of the United States". Just because Trump is inherently the leader already, doesn't inherently make him a good one, the fact that he is President doesn't prove he's good. You'd have to justify it with something outside of its essence.
@bradydalton77 I made flashcards of all the common flaws with examples and why they're wrong and drilled them regularly and found that really helped :)
There is some YouTube videos that go through the FLAW question types, or you can type in Part to Whole LSAT questions, and they are greatly useful in describing what they are.
The lesson we learned about it is the first you try called 'The House on Oak Avenue' after Lesson #5. I think it's a flaw that calls out when people try to apply how one part of something (like a kitchen of a house being well-designed) amounts to the whole of something else being the same (the entire house being well-designed). Just because the kitchen is well designed doesn't transfer necessarily from the parts to the whole.
There's also a lesson on this if you need further explanation: https://7sage.com/lesson/21-common-argument-flaws/
#feedback something about the answers in this section being grouped on the flaw they exhibit makes it a bit less challenging. on the first few Q's in this set, you could easily scan for the sufficiency-necessity flaw, and here it was the representative sample flaw. maybe breaking them up would be more natural, although there was clearly an intention to the sequencing being this way
The point of these lessons isn't to prepare you for the challenge of switching between the modes of reasoning in LR, it's to establish the foundations for your intuition that you draw upon for each type. Just because it isn't as challenging as in the wild does not mean that you're not getting the most out of learning. IMO this is even better, as these groupings allow you to identify common patterns you can refer back to later when you're actually doing the LR sections
I respect what you're saying but disagree. Once we get into taking Preptests regularly, we'll have plenty of opportunity to have to switch modes of thinking on the fly. This gives us a chance to really practice what goes into each question, because really what we are going for here is to learn and get better. Yes it's easier to select the right answer, but that really doesn't matter. It's why we select that right answer, and to make sure we do so in the future. #feedback
I still think it is useful for these common flaws/stimulus types to be presented clearly as different types. Once we learn those and internalize it, it becomes easier to quickly identify what's going on with a question and switch in between the different types.
One of the challenges I have with the CC, is that these specifics are not outlined as clearly as an LSAT book that puts all the theory/knowledge upfront. That learning of the fundamental is very crucial. But the 7Sage approach is "let's learn through doing some questions" and they would scatter info "hey this is a cost-benefit analysis" or this "X type of flaw" without 1 place we go to (whether a video or text lesson) that will have all the fundamental about something)
I know that usually there is a unity to LSAT so these categories are not always helpful at the real deal. But for the foundations, it would give you a good mastery of the test. And you can later train on getting more intuitive and adaptive.
I have another suggestion if I may. I think it would be useful to add a drill category for types of stimulus. For my own study, I have categorized stimulus according to different types (causal logic, formal logic, cost-benefit...etc) and I use them to get more confident and flexible with the different ways these frameworks show up. What do you think of this? I don't know if I am just wasting time or if this would be useful. Let me know what you think. And I am happy to help out with this if you guys want to develop something similar to provide different drilling options.
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.
42 comments
yayay got it right!!! :)
Took way too long but got it right
The difficulty in this question was 2/5 (meaning not as difficult as other questions), however, I got it right, and I am so happy yayyy got it right!
i misread D oops
21 secs lessgoooo
Reading the question actually made me cackle a bit, like who tf would make the argument that almost everyone in the country wants to be a youtuber because a lot of their friends wants to be a youtuber?! Needed this.
it's true
i knew the correct answer was D but still chose E because i thought they were trying to trick us
@jansenbienmbelarmino sameee
@jansenbienmbelarmino I just did the same thing. Were you able to get past these second guess instances as you progressed through the curriculum and took more PT's?
#feedback #help. where do we learn about circular reasoning? I know the term but I feel like we are just supposed to understand it. is there a 7sage lesson that goes over this?
@AlizaGGG Circular reasoning is when an argument presupposes its own truth. "Donald Trump is a good leader, because he is President of the United States". Just because Trump is inherently the leader already, doesn't inherently make him a good one, the fact that he is President doesn't prove he's good. You'd have to justify it with something outside of its essence.
@MALCOLMMACINNIS my go to example of circular reasoning is religious defense argumentation. "God is real/ Jesus is.. because the Bible says so" lol
If we just read the lesson, will be miss any important insights? Or does the written lesson always parallel the video? #help
So cute
this question was so easy it had me think i was going crazyyyyy
I'm barely getting any of the flaw questions right, does anyone have any tips or tricks?
Same
@bradydalton77 I made flashcards of all the common flaws with examples and why they're wrong and drilled them regularly and found that really helped :)
girl thinks she knows everyone
real
Why cant this just be it? 3 hour test of questions like this lol.
Maybe it is!
ok, manifestation!
Not me manifesting it
lightning round af
This argument made me LOL. Wish they were all like this.
Whoever wrote this argument is from Nashville-Tennessee.
I got this one right, but does anyone know which lesson we learn about part-to-whole? Or can anyone explain it to me?
There is some YouTube videos that go through the FLAW question types, or you can type in Part to Whole LSAT questions, and they are greatly useful in describing what they are.
The lesson we learned about it is the first you try called 'The House on Oak Avenue' after Lesson #5. I think it's a flaw that calls out when people try to apply how one part of something (like a kitchen of a house being well-designed) amounts to the whole of something else being the same (the entire house being well-designed). Just because the kitchen is well designed doesn't transfer necessarily from the parts to the whole.
There's also a lesson on this if you need further explanation: https://7sage.com/lesson/21-common-argument-flaws/
:)
Is there a place or summary where we can view all the flaw types together? For example, the Part-to-Whole flaw and all the others.
In v1 there's a list of common flaws/weaknesses!
https://7sage.com/lesson/21-common-argument-flaws/
I agree #help
#feedback something about the answers in this section being grouped on the flaw they exhibit makes it a bit less challenging. on the first few Q's in this set, you could easily scan for the sufficiency-necessity flaw, and here it was the representative sample flaw. maybe breaking them up would be more natural, although there was clearly an intention to the sequencing being this way
The point of these lessons isn't to prepare you for the challenge of switching between the modes of reasoning in LR, it's to establish the foundations for your intuition that you draw upon for each type. Just because it isn't as challenging as in the wild does not mean that you're not getting the most out of learning. IMO this is even better, as these groupings allow you to identify common patterns you can refer back to later when you're actually doing the LR sections
I respect what you're saying but disagree. Once we get into taking Preptests regularly, we'll have plenty of opportunity to have to switch modes of thinking on the fly. This gives us a chance to really practice what goes into each question, because really what we are going for here is to learn and get better. Yes it's easier to select the right answer, but that really doesn't matter. It's why we select that right answer, and to make sure we do so in the future. #feedback
I still think it is useful for these common flaws/stimulus types to be presented clearly as different types. Once we learn those and internalize it, it becomes easier to quickly identify what's going on with a question and switch in between the different types.
One of the challenges I have with the CC, is that these specifics are not outlined as clearly as an LSAT book that puts all the theory/knowledge upfront. That learning of the fundamental is very crucial. But the 7Sage approach is "let's learn through doing some questions" and they would scatter info "hey this is a cost-benefit analysis" or this "X type of flaw" without 1 place we go to (whether a video or text lesson) that will have all the fundamental about something)
I know that usually there is a unity to LSAT so these categories are not always helpful at the real deal. But for the foundations, it would give you a good mastery of the test. And you can later train on getting more intuitive and adaptive.
That's great, JY!!
I have another suggestion if I may. I think it would be useful to add a drill category for types of stimulus. For my own study, I have categorized stimulus according to different types (causal logic, formal logic, cost-benefit...etc) and I use them to get more confident and flexible with the different ways these frameworks show up. What do you think of this? I don't know if I am just wasting time or if this would be useful. Let me know what you think. And I am happy to help out with this if you guys want to develop something similar to provide different drilling options.
We can have both. We're working on a lesson that summarizes all of these flaws and gathers them into one place.
We're working on that as well! As always, would love to hear all your thoughts and comments though I won't be able to reply to every one of them.
I appreciate you engaging us in the process!