#feedback I feel like it would be nice if this section had a written review lesson that listed all the different flaws we encountered. This would help solidify all the variations we were exposed to without having to go back to each lesson and see what new flaw was introduced.
I agree! I've had to return to this section to try to figure out what flaws were covered, and it's been hard to determine that without watching through all the videos or reading through the whole explanation, which just takes way too long imo, especially if you're just trying to find out what the flaw type was. #feedback
I think the most important point about B is that it is not engaging with the reasoning structure at all— I knew going into this question that the correct answer would somehow contradict or weaken the results of the study, which seemingly pointed to computer programs being more accurate. Even though B is enticing, it does nothing to reconcile the results of the study.
#feedback the playback software that allows you to change subtitles, playback speed, etc is sometimes avl and sometimes not. I found that the more progress that I made into the LR section, the less likely I would see the playback interface. On one hand it allowed to focus more on the content on the other hand, I could not change the playback speed.
good example of a question where it's really important to focus in on the main conclusion. We're dealing solely with who should be interpreting this data, not who/how one should be making diagnoses, practicing medicine, etc.
I crossed out C bc it focused on another group "ppl with no heart attacks" while the stimulus focused on ppl with heart attacks. I thought we were supposed to focus on the present group. Can someone plz explain why this isn't the case here and when this application matters or not? Thank you!
So, after the explanation am I correct in thinking it's bc they are both part of the same subset and the conclusion is focusing on more general terms that AI should always interpret EKGs?
@emilydermo393 Yes, the idea we are focusing on is Interpreting EKG data. Thus, those who didn't have a heart attack are an important part of that story. AKA if AI was saying everyone is going to have a heart attack, it could be correctly predicting many more who did have heart attacks because it's assigning that idea to all. But that doesn't mean it's more accurate because it could've misdiagnosed 80% of people who did not end up having a heart attack.
Is there a way to make answer choice (D) correct? For instance, what if we change the "a considerable percentage" to "a majority of percentage" or "all percentage"? Would either of them weaken the argument? #help
Um...are there quite a number of typos involved in general on this platform? I think I am running into a lot of them but am not always certain given the confusing language used around LSAT matters. The rambling explanations make it challenging to determine which answer is the correct one in this type of lesson.
52 comments
#feedback I feel like it would be nice if this section had a written review lesson that listed all the different flaws we encountered. This would help solidify all the variations we were exposed to without having to go back to each lesson and see what new flaw was introduced.
I agree #feedback
#feedback it would be nice if after the end of the lesson, there was a summary including all the types of flaws we learned
I agree! I've had to return to this section to try to figure out what flaws were covered, and it's been hard to determine that without watching through all the videos or reading through the whole explanation, which just takes way too long imo, especially if you're just trying to find out what the flaw type was. #feedback
Could not agree more, would be extremely helpful! #feedback
the boy who cried wolf analogy was TEA. thank you
This was such a good diagram to understand this. Props to 7Sage man
Good lesson.
I think the most important point about B is that it is not engaging with the reasoning structure at all— I knew going into this question that the correct answer would somehow contradict or weaken the results of the study, which seemingly pointed to computer programs being more accurate. Even though B is enticing, it does nothing to reconcile the results of the study.
this is a very good point.
JY: "take a moment to reeeally think about this" (immediately) "the answer is NO"
Brilliant explanation JY! May God bless you and your family!
your welcome
Great lesson! I feel mindboggled by this
This lesson has way too many typos. Please fix it 7Sage!
Makes sense. Thank You
#feedback the playback software that allows you to change subtitles, playback speed, etc is sometimes avl and sometimes not. I found that the more progress that I made into the LR section, the less likely I would see the playback interface. On one hand it allowed to focus more on the content on the other hand, I could not change the playback speed.
This lesson was super insightful
this was a great lesson.
That was a really great explanation in relation to heart attacks and false wolf positives
good example of a question where it's really important to focus in on the main conclusion. We're dealing solely with who should be interpreting this data, not who/how one should be making diagnoses, practicing medicine, etc.
JY's discussion about true/false positives and negatives took me back to my Biostats course in grad school, lol.
I crossed out C bc it focused on another group "ppl with no heart attacks" while the stimulus focused on ppl with heart attacks. I thought we were supposed to focus on the present group. Can someone plz explain why this isn't the case here and when this application matters or not? Thank you!
#help #feedback
So, after the explanation am I correct in thinking it's bc they are both part of the same subset and the conclusion is focusing on more general terms that AI should always interpret EKGs?
@emilydermo393 Yes, the idea we are focusing on is Interpreting EKG data. Thus, those who didn't have a heart attack are an important part of that story. AKA if AI was saying everyone is going to have a heart attack, it could be correctly predicting many more who did have heart attacks because it's assigning that idea to all. But that doesn't mean it's more accurate because it could've misdiagnosed 80% of people who did not end up having a heart attack.
Is there a way to make answer choice (D) correct? For instance, what if we change the "a considerable percentage" to "a majority of percentage" or "all percentage"? Would either of them weaken the argument? #help
@woozookim i also have this question
#feedback: this lesson was already done in weaken questions and the video is the exact same as well
Um...are there quite a number of typos involved in general on this platform? I think I am running into a lot of them but am not always certain given the confusing language used around LSAT matters. The rambling explanations make it challenging to determine which answer is the correct one in this type of lesson.
@mav73 Thanks for commenting -- not sure what happened with this lesson, there were a lot of typos. Fixes should be up in a few days.
Totally thought this was a flaw question
That opening with the boy who cried wolf is bringing me back to studying truth tables and tautologies
Same, I was also a philosophy major. The opening thought experiment made me so nostalgic for my philosophy classes
@ColinErickson Fr lmfao
Weaken questions were my weakness buttt I got this correct :))
My hardest LSAT question. I picked C last of all the answers! I understand it now, but that's a little embarassing hahahah