It would be helpful if these lessons could be labelled according to flaw. For example, "Lesson 11 Question Name, Straw Man Flaw" or "Lesson 9, Question name, Appeal to Authority."
This way, if students do not understand one type of flaw, they can easily reference where the lesson is in the CC for review versus having to search for it later on.
That's a great idea! I'll share this with the team in our efforts to improve the course. Don't hesitate to let us know if you have any more ideas or suggestions.
@Exotic_Desk_679 I foresee a difficulty with labeling these by flaw type, however. Some of us like to try to figure the answer out by clicking the "Show question" button on top of the video, and if the flaw was already labeled in the lesson title, then that would influence how we choose our answer.
this explanation/lesson, though, is probably one of, if not the most useful and information dense throughout the cc so far. he explains like four logical fallacies that are extensively covered in philosophy courses lol.
but i also have no idea why these important concepts are dropped in the middle of nowhere instead of having distinct & labelled lessons for each fallacy.
@bernardjoon1261 bro everyone complains that JY doesn't give a robust explanation for particular ACs that he'll usually brush off and now when he goes over each one and provides crucial info ya'll start complaining lol.
especially for this section the overlap of flaw describing answer choices in varying phrases is helpful lol.
Wouldn't this also be the flaw where the author takes the absence of evidence to support their own argument? (I.e., Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean the argument is false etc). I believe this was an almost-flaw we saw in the 'Support for Tax Reduction' and was wondering if it could be applied here since that's what I first thought of upon reading the stimulus. (B) kind of gets at this idea too #help
The way I interpret these questions in my head is to pick the answer the literally describes what they are doing and eliminating answers that they are not doing... might be way too simplistic but it's been helpful for me
#feedback I think it would be really helpful to see all the answer for each question while it is being explained so that we can try to solve it ourselves before being shown the correct answer.
Lol, the example for D in the text is funny but not funny because it's so realistic and true to how some people actually talk. Getting people riled up or scared is so effective in real life. Funny to think how often bad arguments hide under the guise of emotional manipulation
For anyone not understanding still why A is incorrect, let me rewrite the argument in a way where A would be correct. Answer Choice A looks like this: "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct."
"I recommend that the abandoned shoe store factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. The other council members have not provided any evidence that the show factory would not be the best site. Thus, the shoe factory would be the best site.”
AC A is only compatible in pointing out the flaw in arguments like this above, and they are not descriptively accurate in describing the flaw in the original stimulus.
Yeah, so I immediately saw why (A) was incorrect. Funny enough I thought (B) was the "bait" answer choice for a second. I'm pretty sure that if I saw this question outside of the context of a unit on a specific stem type (e.g. on a PT or mixed stem drill) there might be a better chance I'd go with (B). Still, in any case, the bait can be easy to bite with (A) if you're not being attentive to the stem.
I found whats helped me a lot is the idea of "lassoing" down the answers to the argument. Lasso the conclusion and premise in the argument to the answers you're debating. This has been my weakest section and lassoing has really helped me get many questions correct.
The argument makes a comparative claim that the shoe factory is a better location than the courthouse. By providing evidence for the courthouse being the better location, doesn't this evidence work against the shoe factory being better? The stimulus says there is no evidence the courthouse is better, in other words, there is no evidence against the shoe factory being the better location. Thus, (A) asserting lack of evidence against the shoe factory is proof the shoe factory is the better location. I narrowed down to (A) and (B) and unlike other LSAT questions, I cannot determine a meaningful difference following JY's explanation. I agree (B) is correct but I disagree (A) is wrong.
AC A is wrong because the council member never says anything about evidence for or against the shoe factory. If the argument said Some council members assert that the shoe factory would be a worse shelter site, but they have provided no evidence for this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelter site. Sure there's a lack of evidence, but the argument does not point it out or use it in their argument.
This is how I thought of it in my head but not sure if that'll make sense to others.
Is this the same type of argument flaw as what is known as "unproven vs. proven false"?
If it is, I think using that term is much more intuitive for seeing why it is a bad argument.
Just because the opposing argument that the courthouse would be a better location is unproven by the lack of evidence does NOT mean that it is proven false.
There could be a very strong argument that exists that simply has not been brought up yet in favor of the courthouse.
#feedback I believe the written explanation for (A) may have some issues. After pointing out that the answer choice used "against" instead of "in favor of," it fails to switch back to the original wording for the next part. "It’s true that there is a lack of evidence in favor of that view. But that’s not something the author asserted." Maybe this explanation was intentional, but remember, this is the modified answer choice. There is no follow-up explanation for why the actual choice is incorrect with the original wording (and using the shoe factory as the subject).
Additionally, I think there is a typo in the final sentence of (A)'s explanation:
"...the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is incorrect" should conclude with "...is correct."
I understand why B is correct, but I still don't understand how A is wrong. How is it not also the case that the Council member is also claiming that because the rest of the Council doesn't have proof for their theory about the courthouse (in this case would be a proof against the view, because it is an opposing theory) is in itself proof that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site?
Ah, I had a whole paragraph written out about how I felt the DIY route for this question was misleading in the justification of A, but now that I have had time to review comments, I do finally understand where I went wrong: The reason A is wrong is that the council member is not citing a lack of evidence against the view that the factory would be better suited, they only cited that the lack of evidence for the courthouse being better suited instead. It is an inference to state that the lack of evidence for one item equates to the lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
Lack of evidence against using the shoe factory could include: broken windows, poor insulation, asbestos, etc., but that is not explicitly stated here.
So, am I to understand that evidence for one claim does not constitute evidence against a conflicting claim if only one can be correct, and that they can only be considered independently?
Example to illustrate my confusion: person A thinks it is night, person B thinks it is day. It can only ever be one time, so if the reality is that it is day, evidence that suggests it is day, would (to me, somewhat instinctively) feel like reasonable evidence against person A's contention.
Would it be wrong to say "person A is wrong bc person B is correct?" Or should I think of it as "person B is correct because it is verifiably day. And therefore person B is incorrect because it is verifiably not night."
there may be many other good arguments for why we should order ice cream
the text is missing the word "order" in this sentence
Can we fix this? Yes. Edited (A) asserting that a lack of evidence in favor of a view is proof that an opposing view is correct. The author does assert that there is a lack of evidence in favor of the view (the courthouse) and the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is correct.
47 comments
councillor acting liking he got evidence too
Your sarcastic comments keep me going I literally keep looking for them at the bottom of each lesson
LOL this made my night! Now I wish I wrote more comments lmaooo
This is so funnyyyyy
#feedback
It would be helpful if these lessons could be labelled according to flaw. For example, "Lesson 11 Question Name, Straw Man Flaw" or "Lesson 9, Question name, Appeal to Authority."
This way, if students do not understand one type of flaw, they can easily reference where the lesson is in the CC for review versus having to search for it later on.
Hey there,
That's a great idea! I'll share this with the team in our efforts to improve the course. Don't hesitate to let us know if you have any more ideas or suggestions.
I agree with this! This would be very very helpful instead of having to go through the entire video to see what type of question it is.
@Exotic_Desk_679 I foresee a difficulty with labeling these by flaw type, however. Some of us like to try to figure the answer out by clicking the "Show question" button on top of the video, and if the flaw was already labeled in the lesson title, then that would influence how we choose our answer.
@JuliaWise Correct, I prefer to not know the type and just answer the question.
Under timed pressure you can absolutely assume A to be the right answer and THEY KNEW THISSSSS
bro yaps too much in these videos
i agree with this for some other lessons.
this explanation/lesson, though, is probably one of, if not the most useful and information dense throughout the cc so far. he explains like four logical fallacies that are extensively covered in philosophy courses lol.
but i also have no idea why these important concepts are dropped in the middle of nowhere instead of having distinct & labelled lessons for each fallacy.
@bernardjoon1261 bro everyone complains that JY doesn't give a robust explanation for particular ACs that he'll usually brush off and now when he goes over each one and provides crucial info ya'll start complaining lol.
especially for this section the overlap of flaw describing answer choices in varying phrases is helpful lol.
this council is doomed fsho
Wouldn't this also be the flaw where the author takes the absence of evidence to support their own argument? (I.e., Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean the argument is false etc). I believe this was an almost-flaw we saw in the 'Support for Tax Reduction' and was wondering if it could be applied here since that's what I first thought of upon reading the stimulus. (B) kind of gets at this idea too #help
#help #feedback I am wondering this too!
same thing here! #help
Yes, I believe this is what B is saying. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ACs are not always going to be phrased in the ideal way.
I could only think of Jumanji (1995).
feeling good about these...lets hope that doesn't change
Disregarded B because I thought "not adequately defending their view" was different from not providing evidence.
The way I interpret these questions in my head is to pick the answer the literally describes what they are doing and eliminating answers that they are not doing... might be way too simplistic but it's been helpful for me
@AlexCaches agreed! I do the same thing and it helps a lot.
#feedback I think it would be really helpful to see all the answer for each question while it is being explained so that we can try to solve it ourselves before being shown the correct answer.
i agree because it makes me dread these types of lessons and feel like im not really solving it
Use the Quick View feature before pressing play on the video
I think they added that later on prolly thanks to this guy lol
Lol, the example for D in the text is funny but not funny because it's so realistic and true to how some people actually talk. Getting people riled up or scared is so effective in real life. Funny to think how often bad arguments hide under the guise of emotional manipulation
Answer Choice (A) asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct.
Descriptively inaccurate.
A lack of evidence for the courthouse is not the same as a lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
The argument focuses on a lack of evidence for the courthouse, not on a lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
Before I watched the video I was like wow why is it not A and now I cannot believe I got that wrong
Jeez Mr. JP is also a talented illustrator! lawyers are multi/super talented.
For anyone not understanding still why A is incorrect, let me rewrite the argument in a way where A would be correct. Answer Choice A looks like this: "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct."
"I recommend that the abandoned shoe store factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. The other council members have not provided any evidence that the show factory would not be the best site. Thus, the shoe factory would be the best site.”
AC A is only compatible in pointing out the flaw in arguments like this above, and they are not descriptively accurate in describing the flaw in the original stimulus.
Yeah, so I immediately saw why (A) was incorrect. Funny enough I thought (B) was the "bait" answer choice for a second. I'm pretty sure that if I saw this question outside of the context of a unit on a specific stem type (e.g. on a PT or mixed stem drill) there might be a better chance I'd go with (B). Still, in any case, the bait can be easy to bite with (A) if you're not being attentive to the stem.
I found whats helped me a lot is the idea of "lassoing" down the answers to the argument. Lasso the conclusion and premise in the argument to the answers you're debating. This has been my weakest section and lassoing has really helped me get many questions correct.
#Feedback There are a handful of errors (missing words, etc.) in the body of the text explanation for this lesson.
@pamelajkok Thanks for catching these! Fixes should be up by end of next week.
The argument makes a comparative claim that the shoe factory is a better location than the courthouse. By providing evidence for the courthouse being the better location, doesn't this evidence work against the shoe factory being better? The stimulus says there is no evidence the courthouse is better, in other words, there is no evidence against the shoe factory being the better location. Thus, (A) asserting lack of evidence against the shoe factory is proof the shoe factory is the better location. I narrowed down to (A) and (B) and unlike other LSAT questions, I cannot determine a meaningful difference following JY's explanation. I agree (B) is correct but I disagree (A) is wrong.
AC A is wrong because the council member never says anything about evidence for or against the shoe factory. If the argument said Some council members assert that the shoe factory would be a worse shelter site, but they have provided no evidence for this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelter site. Sure there's a lack of evidence, but the argument does not point it out or use it in their argument.
This is how I thought of it in my head but not sure if that'll make sense to others.
Is this the same type of argument flaw as what is known as "unproven vs. proven false"?
If it is, I think using that term is much more intuitive for seeing why it is a bad argument.
Just because the opposing argument that the courthouse would be a better location is unproven by the lack of evidence does NOT mean that it is proven false.
There could be a very strong argument that exists that simply has not been brought up yet in favor of the courthouse.
#feedback I believe the written explanation for (A) may have some issues. After pointing out that the answer choice used "against" instead of "in favor of," it fails to switch back to the original wording for the next part. "It’s true that there is a lack of evidence in favor of that view. But that’s not something the author asserted." Maybe this explanation was intentional, but remember, this is the modified answer choice. There is no follow-up explanation for why the actual choice is incorrect with the original wording (and using the shoe factory as the subject).
Additionally, I think there is a typo in the final sentence of (A)'s explanation:
"...the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is incorrect" should conclude with "...is correct."
I understand why B is correct, but I still don't understand how A is wrong. How is it not also the case that the Council member is also claiming that because the rest of the Council doesn't have proof for their theory about the courthouse (in this case would be a proof against the view, because it is an opposing theory) is in itself proof that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site?
Ah, I had a whole paragraph written out about how I felt the DIY route for this question was misleading in the justification of A, but now that I have had time to review comments, I do finally understand where I went wrong: The reason A is wrong is that the council member is not citing a lack of evidence against the view that the factory would be better suited, they only cited that the lack of evidence for the courthouse being better suited instead. It is an inference to state that the lack of evidence for one item equates to the lack of evidence against the shoe factory.
Lack of evidence against using the shoe factory could include: broken windows, poor insulation, asbestos, etc., but that is not explicitly stated here.
So, am I to understand that evidence for one claim does not constitute evidence against a conflicting claim if only one can be correct, and that they can only be considered independently?
Example to illustrate my confusion: person A thinks it is night, person B thinks it is day. It can only ever be one time, so if the reality is that it is day, evidence that suggests it is day, would (to me, somewhat instinctively) feel like reasonable evidence against person A's contention.
Would it be wrong to say "person A is wrong bc person B is correct?" Or should I think of it as "person B is correct because it is verifiably day. And therefore person B is incorrect because it is verifiably not night."
there may be many other good arguments for why we should order ice cream
the text is missing the word "order" in this sentence
Can we fix this? Yes. Edited (A) asserting that a lack of evidence in favor of a view is proof that an opposing view is correct. The author does assert that there is a lack of evidence in favor of the view (the courthouse) and the author takes that to be proof that an opposing view (the shoe factory) is correct.
incorrect should be fixed to correct
#feedback