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.
@CamilleChmura we got tricked bc they used "implies" in one part and then stated a bunch of true facts, but we actually couldn't apply any of those facts because the "implies" part was subjective and weakened the argument
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.
For all the NFL fans out there, here is a stimulus example that I think illustrates the flaw in this lesson’s question:
‘It is well known that having a Super Bowl winning quarterback on a team’s roster helps make that team poised to go to the playoffs. Going to the playoffs enables an NFL team to have a real shot at winning a Super Bowl. Thus, NFL fans who know the Colts to have newly-signed player Joe Flacco, a Super Bowl Champion, as the Colts starting quarterback, must evidently believe the Colts have a legitimate chance at winning a Super Bowl next season.’
The flaw here is that just because an NFL fan believes/knows a team to have a ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ does not mean they will infer said team to have a legit shot at the Super Bowl. Firstly, because said NFL fan may not even have the knowledge of the stimulus’ chain - I’d wager many NFL fans would not subscribe to the chain I laid out above. And secondly, even if an NFL fan knew and subscribed to the chain I laid out, who says they would hold the implied belief for any ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ on a given team? It’s likely NFL fans would infer that, say, Patrick Mahomes (a Super Bowl winning quarterback) does in fact give the Chiefs a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain). But Joe Flacco? Or, even Nick Foles (another old, washed up Super Bowl winning quarterback)? I don’t think they’d infer these QBs give their respective teams a good shot at a Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain).
Another way to think about the flaw (other than the explanation given: what we know vs. what others know) is that social theorists are brought up in the conclusion but not in the premises. There is a gap that exists here - it goes from fact to beliefs of social theorists. So the answer should address that gap.
When there's something new in the conclusion that was not brought up in the premises, there is some assumption or gap that has not been addressed.
What is everyone's approach for these longer videos? I find that it is harder for me to follow just watching the video but not sure if I should skim the text once the video starts to click?
@AlexCaches I read the full question (using the show question button underneath the lesson title) and try and answer it on my own. These videos aren't aligned with my thinking process, so they really overcomplicate & confuse me.
If I get it right and feel that I really understand my answer, I treat it as a normal drill question and skip the video entirely.
If I get it wrong or don't fully understand, I read the answer(s) analytics that I was confused about and the video explanation if needed. Usually that's enough for me. But everyone's brain works differently! :)
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.
When I first learn how to translate, the hardest part was getting rid of words and only capturing the most essential to input into the translation. Now, that's become automatic to me and I was able to see the valid structure of this argument and omit information that will not help me understand the logical structure. The the next step now, is to continue doing that while being mindful of what we were omitting to make the translation. Here, I knew "people believing" is not the same as arguing "X is Y" but that was not important to understanding the logical structure. Once I realized the logic was ok, it was easy to anticipate that the problem was gonna be with that omission that I intentionally overlooked in the translation.
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!
For those who feel bad about skipping a question, remember that it is fine to pick an option at random. Leaving an answer blank or wrong does not dock any points. However because each choice is a 20% chance of being right, its more worthwhile to 'roll that die' by picking an answer.
@IsabelleSantiago skip ahead and check out the flaw list, and then come back to it. I solved every question n the flaw list and came up with my own examples for the flaws and came back to this and it just kinda clicked
The argument assumes that because you believe that people act only in their own self interest, government consent is not possible, so therefore you MUST believe that government consent is not possible. The flaw in this argument is that just because you believe 1 thing, doesn't immediately mean you also must beleive everything that this 1 thing implies. therefore, A is right.
I got the answer right intuitively and the video over explained it to the point where I was confused. I feel like breaking up the logic would take more time than just going with my gut. Do other people feel the same, or am I missing some other important point from this video?
89 comments
whoever wrote this question can go to h3ll
@Zuqui2424 LMAO
#feedback It would be helpful to view the data for this question in the lesson itself (time it should take, difficulty, etc)
Is this lesson really kicking anyone else
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.
The poor souls who felt confident on test day and this was probably their first question on the LSAT.
it was q16 luckily for them
what z heck
what is going on
@CamilleChmura we got tricked bc they used "implies" in one part and then stated a bunch of true facts, but we actually couldn't apply any of those facts because the "implies" part was subjective and weakened the argument
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.
bruh this question is loosing me
holy cow that was a tough one
For all the NFL fans out there, here is a stimulus example that I think illustrates the flaw in this lesson’s question:
‘It is well known that having a Super Bowl winning quarterback on a team’s roster helps make that team poised to go to the playoffs. Going to the playoffs enables an NFL team to have a real shot at winning a Super Bowl. Thus, NFL fans who know the Colts to have newly-signed player Joe Flacco, a Super Bowl Champion, as the Colts starting quarterback, must evidently believe the Colts have a legitimate chance at winning a Super Bowl next season.’
The flaw here is that just because an NFL fan believes/knows a team to have a ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ does not mean they will infer said team to have a legit shot at the Super Bowl. Firstly, because said NFL fan may not even have the knowledge of the stimulus’ chain - I’d wager many NFL fans would not subscribe to the chain I laid out above. And secondly, even if an NFL fan knew and subscribed to the chain I laid out, who says they would hold the implied belief for any ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ on a given team? It’s likely NFL fans would infer that, say, Patrick Mahomes (a Super Bowl winning quarterback) does in fact give the Chiefs a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain). But Joe Flacco? Or, even Nick Foles (another old, washed up Super Bowl winning quarterback)? I don’t think they’d infer these QBs give their respective teams a good shot at a Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain).
This was so helpful lol thank you
THESE are now the high-level questions?!?! The whole section of flaw questions feel high level. 😭
getting this right felt SOO GOOODDDD
Another way to think about the flaw (other than the explanation given: what we know vs. what others know) is that social theorists are brought up in the conclusion but not in the premises. There is a gap that exists here - it goes from fact to beliefs of social theorists. So the answer should address that gap.
When there's something new in the conclusion that was not brought up in the premises, there is some assumption or gap that has not been addressed.
What is everyone's approach for these longer videos? I find that it is harder for me to follow just watching the video but not sure if I should skim the text once the video starts to click?
@AlexCaches I usually just read the text under the video or watch it in 2x if that happens to confirm I didn't miss anything and move on
@AlexCaches I read the full question (using the show question button underneath the lesson title) and try and answer it on my own. These videos aren't aligned with my thinking process, so they really overcomplicate & confuse me.
If I get it right and feel that I really understand my answer, I treat it as a normal drill question and skip the video entirely.
If I get it wrong or don't fully understand, I read the answer(s) analytics that I was confused about and the video explanation if needed. Usually that's enough for me. But everyone's brain works differently! :)
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.
When I first learn how to translate, the hardest part was getting rid of words and only capturing the most essential to input into the translation. Now, that's become automatic to me and I was able to see the valid structure of this argument and omit information that will not help me understand the logical structure. The the next step now, is to continue doing that while being mindful of what we were omitting to make the translation. Here, I knew "people believing" is not the same as arguing "X is Y" but that was not important to understanding the logical structure. Once I realized the logic was ok, it was easy to anticipate that the problem was gonna be with that omission that I intentionally overlooked in the translation.
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!
For those who feel bad about skipping a question, remember that it is fine to pick an option at random. Leaving an answer blank or wrong does not dock any points. However because each choice is a 20% chance of being right, its more worthwhile to 'roll that die' by picking an answer.
This really made sense as soon as I read it . I am so proud of myself omg.
The political scientist in me ☝🏽🤓
This just confused me ngl
I am really struggling on these... I am scared
@IsabelleSantiago skip ahead and check out the flaw list, and then come back to it. I solved every question n the flaw list and came up with my own examples for the flaws and came back to this and it just kinda clicked
Could someone explain this in a more succinct way? I'm very confused :(
The argument assumes that because you believe that people act only in their own self interest, government consent is not possible, so therefore you MUST believe that government consent is not possible. The flaw in this argument is that just because you believe 1 thing, doesn't immediately mean you also must beleive everything that this 1 thing implies. therefore, A is right.
could have saved myself 18 minutes if i just scrolled to the comments thank you so so much !!
Thank you! The explanation in the video was so drawn out that I got lost.
THANK YOU
I got the answer right intuitively and the video over explained it to the point where I was confused. I feel like breaking up the logic would take more time than just going with my gut. Do other people feel the same, or am I missing some other important point from this video?
@MallikaMalhotra that could be a shot in the dark and risky