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 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
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
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 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.
@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 :)
Almost everyone I know is heavily left-leaning and many are even socialist. This doesn't mean that everyone in America is left-leaning (unfortunately), it just speaks to who I surround myself with and value the morals and beliefs of. This question seems like it was written by an artist in artistic social circles; while I, too, am an artist in artistic social circles, I definitely wouldn't claim that everyone wants to be an artist just because many people I know would attest to this.
Apply your own logic and experiences, within the scope of the question! Remembering that the LSAT is based in real, tangible logic that affects day-to-day life can help not only keep you focused but also grounded.
52 comments
girl thinks she knows everyone
real
Why cant this just be it? 3 hour test of questions like this lol.
Maybe it is!
Not me manifesting it
ok, manifestation!
This argument made me LOL. Wish they were all like this.
Whoever wrote this argument is from Nashville-Tennessee.
Please make every question this easy when I take the test next month.
lightning round af
i may have gotten this one right but trust and believe i will get the next five wrong!!!
@plsendhelp same #plsendhelp
if only every question could be this simple
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.
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?
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!
#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
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
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 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.
We can have both. We're working on a lesson that summarizes all of these flaws and gathers them into one place.
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.
I appreciate you engaging us in the process!
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.
If we just read the lesson, will be miss any important insights? Or does the written lesson always parallel the video? #help
this question was so easy it had me think i was going crazyyyyy
21 secs lessgoooo
it's true
So cute
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 :)
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
can every question be this easy? :(
Ngl this was one of the first questions where I actually had to pay attention to who the speaker was
i misread D oops
Almost everyone I know is heavily left-leaning and many are even socialist. This doesn't mean that everyone in America is left-leaning (unfortunately), it just speaks to who I surround myself with and value the morals and beliefs of. This question seems like it was written by an artist in artistic social circles; while I, too, am an artist in artistic social circles, I definitely wouldn't claim that everyone wants to be an artist just because many people I know would attest to this.
Apply your own logic and experiences, within the scope of the question! Remembering that the LSAT is based in real, tangible logic that affects day-to-day life can help not only keep you focused but also grounded.
Why is it not C?