I thought the answer was C since that's what we've been doing for the past few questions... not sure why its not given that it's applying it to the population
How do we translate this into a conditional statement: "since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.". I thought "not" indicated negation so group 4 negate necessary: absence of gov by consent -> democracy is possible (cause double negation of not)?
I feel like I'm always better at dealing with these abstract questions than with the concrete weakening questions, even though they are just the same question with different phrases.
My favorite part of the explanation is J.Y saying that if it still sounds weird, then don't worry, it is not that weird. Thanks, bro, that cleared everything up lol.
I wonder how effective the time spent on breaking down the analogous argument vs breaking down the actual argument in the stimulus was. Like I understand the point of creating the analogous argument, but then you break down the analogous argument to point us to the answer and then just draw arrows matching it to the stimulus. IMO would be more effective if you broke down the stimulus instead of the analogous argument to direct us to the answer. I got the answer right, but i think the stimulus' description "evidently believes that aspiring to democracy is futile" was ripe for dissecting here but we instead spent the time discussing seed bearing fruits. Idk maybe i'm just spending too much time on here.
These past 3 questions have been very challenging to me... I can tell that the issue is part-to-whole when I read the passage, but I just cannot find the right answer choice that indicates that issue.
i think it would be better to look as this as us assuming the social theorists are going to believe in a logical manner. rather than assuming they don't have the knowledge to make that claim. basically there could be a million reasons as to why they do not have that same beleif.
I am confused about the conditional diagram. Since it says people are concerned only with their self interest... doesnt this indicate group 2 Necessary. And if thats the case the conclusion would actually be:
/democracy --> strictly selfish
I am not sure it really matters anyways as I was able to get the answer correct without diagramming, but for practice I thought it would be good to diagram it and see what JY came up with. I am likely wrong as I cant see JY getting this confused but I was wondering if anyone could clarify this for me?
the way I have come to understand this type of flaw "psychological conclusion flaw" is the following:
if you are presented with a claim/conclusion mentioning:
"if other people believe X about A then they must also believe Y about A" can be flawed bc:
1. what u know vs what others know
if u are told about a certain belief people hold about something and then u are presented with a fact about that same thing U CANNOT infer that believe also believe what u just read/learned because its about the same thing.
U only know their one belief and thats it. U cannot infer another belief that someone holds just because u now know something related to the belief they hold!
2. what is IMPLIED vs. what id INFERRED
When u are told about a belief that someone holds about something and are presented with something that is implied of that very same thing U CANNOT INFER they also know believe in it just because it implied.
Just because something is implied u cannot infer that very same thing can be applied to something else merely because its implied.
I recognize this can be a bit abstract but I hope this helps!
Could someone please help me understand why answer choice E) is incorrect for an argument that has psychological flaw?
If someone could simply and plainly state why ad explain it would be much appreciates as the text lesson was unclear to me why this answer is incorrect!
Thank you!
#help
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
63 comments
Is this lesson really kicking anyone else
I thought the answer was C since that's what we've been doing for the past few questions... not sure why its not given that it's applying it to the population
How do we translate this into a conditional statement: "since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.". I thought "not" indicated negation so group 4 negate necessary: absence of gov by consent -> democracy is possible (cause double negation of not)?
I feel like I'm always better at dealing with these abstract questions than with the concrete weakening questions, even though they are just the same question with different phrases.
what is going on
#feedback It would be helpful to view the data for this question in the lesson itself (time it should take, difficulty, etc)
Guys im finally getting it :,) WE GOT THIS
My favorite part of the explanation is J.Y saying that if it still sounds weird, then don't worry, it is not that weird. Thanks, bro, that cleared everything up lol.
I wonder how effective the time spent on breaking down the analogous argument vs breaking down the actual argument in the stimulus was. Like I understand the point of creating the analogous argument, but then you break down the analogous argument to point us to the answer and then just draw arrows matching it to the stimulus. IMO would be more effective if you broke down the stimulus instead of the analogous argument to direct us to the answer. I got the answer right, but i think the stimulus' description "evidently believes that aspiring to democracy is futile" was ripe for dissecting here but we instead spent the time discussing seed bearing fruits. Idk maybe i'm just spending too much time on here.
Got this one right away and didn't even look at the other answers. A WIN!
After getting the last one wrong, I am happy to be back!!
Could someone explain this in a more succinct way? I'm very confused :(
THESE are now the high-level questions?!?! The whole section of flaw questions feel high level. 😭
Wait.. am I supposed to be watching the video AND reading the text lesson?!?!
the win i needed
getting this right felt SOO GOOODDDD
These past 3 questions have been very challenging to me... I can tell that the issue is part-to-whole when I read the passage, but I just cannot find the right answer choice that indicates that issue.
i think it would be better to look as this as us assuming the social theorists are going to believe in a logical manner. rather than assuming they don't have the knowledge to make that claim. basically there could be a million reasons as to why they do not have that same beleif.
this question was so intuitive to me and i guess it's because of that poli sci major lmao
The political scientist in me ☝🏽🤓
irrelevant to logic, but what other IR/poli major immediately red-flagged this knowing about the existence of thomas hobbes lol
having to adjust the volume cz JY is excited about apples is the a reminder of why I stuck to this course lol
I am confused about the conditional diagram. Since it says people are concerned only with their self interest... doesnt this indicate group 2 Necessary. And if thats the case the conclusion would actually be:
/democracy --> strictly selfish
I am not sure it really matters anyways as I was able to get the answer correct without diagramming, but for practice I thought it would be good to diagram it and see what JY came up with. I am likely wrong as I cant see JY getting this confused but I was wondering if anyone could clarify this for me?
Thanks
#feedback
the way I have come to understand this type of flaw "psychological conclusion flaw" is the following:
if you are presented with a claim/conclusion mentioning:
"if other people believe X about A then they must also believe Y about A" can be flawed bc:
1. what u know vs what others know
if u are told about a certain belief people hold about something and then u are presented with a fact about that same thing U CANNOT infer that believe also believe what u just read/learned because its about the same thing.
U only know their one belief and thats it. U cannot infer another belief that someone holds just because u now know something related to the belief they hold!
2. what is IMPLIED vs. what id INFERRED
When u are told about a belief that someone holds about something and are presented with something that is implied of that very same thing U CANNOT INFER they also know believe in it just because it implied.
Just because something is implied u cannot infer that very same thing can be applied to something else merely because its implied.
I recognize this can be a bit abstract but I hope this helps!
Hi everyone!
Could someone please help me understand why answer choice E) is incorrect for an argument that has psychological flaw?
If someone could simply and plainly state why ad explain it would be much appreciates as the text lesson was unclear to me why this answer is incorrect!
Thank you!
#help