I thought that D was already mentioned in the stimulus stating that small observational studies are more frequent than large randomized trials? Since it was mentioned, wouldn't that mean that it wasn't overlooked?
@KhushyMandania Frequency in the stim pertains to the reporting of observational studies in newspapers only. While D discusses the "frequency" of observational studies (as in published by the scientists or social scientists or wtv, not newspapers).
This possibility was overlooked bc, even though the journalist mention that there are more observational studies in newspapers, they don't rule out the possibility that its due to there just being more observational studies in general. If that makes sense!
Took me 5 minutes and 26 secs and it clicked... I was so tempted to guess and move on but realized it's better to take my time and actually give effort so I can learn from my process--for better efficiency in the actual test. When it's hard, take your time and conquer the question--run towards it!!!
small observational studies are somewhat unreliable
large randomized trials are more reliable
new stories about small observational studies are more frequent than those about large randomized trials
conclusion: small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings than large trials
I had a very hard time seeing the flaw in this argument and didn't spot it until reading answer choice D). Reading D) prompted me to think: "Wait, let's say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials. Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, that would still be consistent with more frequent news stories on observational studies (10 vs 20). What if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still see more stories on observational studies (5 vs 50)." If D) is true, the argument really falls apart: the reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common (aka more of them are conducted), then they would be more likely to appear in the news.
@steamboatwillie It would be "assumes, without warrant, that there are NOT more small studies than large studies". That is the same as "overlooks the possibility that there are more small studies than large studies".
As for the reason both of these are the correct answer:
Say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials.
Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, we still end up with more dramatic findings in the observational group (20 studies) than in the large trial group (10 studies).
Now what if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still have more dramatic findings from observational studies than from the large trials (50 vs 5).
If D) is true, the argument really falls apart. The reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common, that could still explain why they are more frequent in the news.
just reading the passage and finding the answer during the reading before reading the questions. when reading questions then im just looking for my answer and once i find it just go
Guys yesterday i was struggling so bad with this section i got back to back wrong. Today i am doing so much better, I just got this right 41 seconds faster than target time. Do not give up! Some days will be better than others trust me. It will click for 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!
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.
127 comments
#help
I thought that D was already mentioned in the stimulus stating that small observational studies are more frequent than large randomized trials? Since it was mentioned, wouldn't that mean that it wasn't overlooked?
@KhushyMandania Frequency in the stim pertains to the reporting of observational studies in newspapers only. While D discusses the "frequency" of observational studies (as in published by the scientists or social scientists or wtv, not newspapers).
This possibility was overlooked bc, even though the journalist mention that there are more observational studies in newspapers, they don't rule out the possibility that its due to there just being more observational studies in general. If that makes sense!
@EmmyIsabela THANK YOU! this makes so much sense
The way I didn't struggle on this level 5 difficulty question, but then I am genuinely stumped on a few level 2 difficult questions. 🤡
21 seconds under letsss gooo
Needed this one after bombing the previous level 1 question lol
How do I get the level 5 question 14 seconds under the target time but I spend 1 minute above the target time on a level 1 question just to fail it.
Took me 5 minutes and 26 secs and it clicked... I was so tempted to guess and move on but realized it's better to take my time and actually give effort so I can learn from my process--for better efficiency in the actual test. When it's hard, take your time and conquer the question--run towards it!!!
Almost got me
I have literally never done a hard question under time but this was seemingly easy as 123. Idk whats going on but im okay with it
I've seen this question before on 7sage...
I correctly chose (D) but thought for sure that I was choosing a weaken trap answer
i've getting the easier questions incorrect but the harder questions correct #help
@jansenbienmbelarmino same here does anyone know what flaw in reasoning causes this?
this literally took me 43 seconds to get correct, which is so confusing because im getting easier ones so wrong....
@CharChar3 Gay
26 seconds unddaaaaa (call me the undertaker)
premises:
news bias to report studies that sound dramatic
small observational studies are somewhat unreliablelarge randomized trials are more reliablenew stories about small observational studies are more frequent than those about large randomized trials
conclusion: small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings than large trials
I had a very hard time seeing the flaw in this argument and didn't spot it until reading answer choice D). Reading D) prompted me to think: "Wait, let's say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials. Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, that would still be consistent with more frequent news stories on observational studies (10 vs 20). What if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still see more stories on observational studies (5 vs 50)." If D) is true, the argument really falls apart: the reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common (aka more of them are conducted), then they would be more likely to appear in the news.
@AudreyGilmour The premises I crossed out are just distraction in the stimulus, they aren't actually relevant to the argument and just confused me
welcome back to another episode of me choosing the right answer and then gaslighting myself into the wrong one
Same - he 100% correct actual and 0% in BR makes me feel like the biggest goof every time
I've gotten all of these right so far. I can't wait to get absolutely humbled in the final drill lol
sorry if this is a dumb question, but i dont understand the phrasing of the correct answer D. if anyone can help, i'd appreciate it!
so, the flaw is generalizing from a subset to a superset.
goes from saying "subset has more of small studies with dramatic findings" to "superset is more likely to have small studies with dramatic findings"
right?
my question is, why is it not an "assumes, without warrant, that there are more small studies than large studies in the superset"?
the answer choice is an "overlooks the possibility there's more small studies than large studies in the superset"
@steamboatwillie It would be "assumes, without warrant, that there are NOT more small studies than large studies". That is the same as "overlooks the possibility that there are more small studies than large studies".
As for the reason both of these are the correct answer:
Say there are 100 observational studies a year and only 10 large randomized trials.
Even if 100% of the large trials generated dramatic findings versus only 20% of the observational studies, we still end up with more dramatic findings in the observational group (20 studies) than in the large trial group (10 studies).
Now what if the two kinds of studies had equal rates for dramatic findings? Say 50%. We would still have more dramatic findings from observational studies than from the large trials (50 vs 5).
If D) is true, the argument really falls apart. The reason there are more stories about observational studies is not necessarily because they are more likely to generate dramatic findings. In fact, the proportion of observational studies generating dramatic findings could be the same or lower than the proportion of large trials generating such findings, but if the observational studies are more common, that could still explain why they are more frequent in the news.
Hope this helps!
got this in a min and a half but then sat on it for another min and a half, idk why I keep doing this and my lsat is tmrrw im so screwedddd
hope it went well!! bet you crushed it
1 minute faster than target
just reading the passage and finding the answer during the reading before reading the questions. when reading questions then im just looking for my answer and once i find it just go
16 seconds faster than the target I cant wait to get violently humbled in the next few questions
ive been gettting a lot of the latest flaws wrong :(
this one legit took me 8 minutes LOLL bc i refused to not get it right
flaws will be the death of me
Guys yesterday i was struggling so bad with this section i got back to back wrong. Today i am doing so much better, I just got this right 41 seconds faster than target time. Do not give up! Some days will be better than others trust me. It will click for you.
@Vegaofcain mind explaining how you arrived at your answer?
i keep second guessing myself enough is ENOUGH
Nothing humbles me more than studying for the lsat