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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
#help Because the other councilors' position is a comparative claim - that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory - couldn't their evidence be considered both evidence for the courthouse and evidence against the shoe factory? In which case wouldn't A also work?
What evidence? It says that they have provided 'no evidence'..
I suppose the way A could be correct would be if the council member talking was one with the view in favour of the courthouse stating that because there is no evidence against the courthouse being the bests option then that is proof it is the best option.
It is important to only consider the words on the page, which in this case is no evidence
#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.
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.
soooo they are critiquing the argument in favour of choice B (courthouse) instead of critiquing B itself by showing us why it sucks or why choice A (factory) is better. This matters because the conclusion is about which choice is better and as the argument currently stands, we genuinely don't know -- again, because we don't know the pros/cons of choice A and B. all we know is that there was some argument(s) for B, it sucked, so A is better (which is flawed reasoning)
#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."
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
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
41 comments
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
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.
feeling good about these...lets hope that doesn't change
#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.
Jeez Mr. JP is also a talented illustrator! lawyers are multi/super talented.
Disregarded B because I thought "not adequately defending their view" was different from not providing evidence.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
#help Because the other councilors' position is a comparative claim - that the courthouse would be better than the shoe factory - couldn't their evidence be considered both evidence for the courthouse and evidence against the shoe factory? In which case wouldn't A also work?
What evidence? It says that they have provided 'no evidence'..
I suppose the way A could be correct would be if the council member talking was one with the view in favour of the courthouse stating that because there is no evidence against the courthouse being the bests option then that is proof it is the best option.
It is important to only consider the words on the page, which in this case is no evidence
#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
I could only think of Jumanji (1995).
#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.
this council is doomed fsho
soooo they are critiquing the argument in favour of choice B (courthouse) instead of critiquing B itself by showing us why it sucks or why choice A (factory) is better. This matters because the conclusion is about which choice is better and as the argument currently stands, we genuinely don't know -- again, because we don't know the pros/cons of choice A and B. all we know is that there was some argument(s) for B, it sucked, so A is better (which is flawed reasoning)
#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."
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
same thing here! #help
#help #feedback I am wondering this too!
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.