Would it have also been correct to eliminate A because they just say "Ben" without confirming he's an Artisan? Cause doesn't it have to say something like: "Ben, who is an artisan,..."?
Student Question: I'm wondering if the “softer” conclusion (using the word “likely” when it’s not necessary to do so) makes the argument weaker or invalid. (I understand that this is one of multiple flaws, and I understand the other flaws but not this one.) In the explanation of the stimulus, J.Y. discusses this as “another mistake” in the passage. However, when there’s a similar mistake in answer choice (D), he says the argument in (D) is valid although the conclusion could have been even stronger. So, is an argument like “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet” valid? Is it weaker than an argument with the revised conclusion “Therefore, the ground is wet”?
Tutor Answer: In the explanation, the "likely" is another mistake in the sense that, if the argument were truly being consistent with the flaw it makes (erroneous contrapositive), we would just go straight to negating the original sufficient condition, which is about a definite fact (the first child was born before the due date). Without getting too much into the weeds, it's important to see that we're not repeating the flaw that makes the whole reasoning wrong: substituting "not born before the due date" for "was not likely to have been born before the due date." In this first case, removing the "likely" changes the original negative condition from a statement about likelihood or probability ("it is likely her second child will be born before the due date") to a statement of fact that doesn't tell us anything about likelihood ("her second child was not born before the due date"). In this case, removing the "likely" changes the nature of the condition. Meanwhile, adding a "likely" to "it is likely that Jackie's first child was not born before its due date" is unnecessary and doesn't fix the flaw, but it also doesn't repeat the original mistake: our prediction, if this were a true contrapositive, would normally be that her first child was definitely not born before the due date; when "likely" is added to a definite statement, it softens it, but the statement is still true.
A good way to think about this is as follows: if we go from a likelihood to a certainty (i.e, we drop a "likely"), we change the nature of the condition, which is not allowed -- but we can modify from a certainty to a likelihood (i.e., add a "likely"), even if it's unnecessary. If your friends told you, "We checked the thermometer, and it's definitely, 100% verified, hot outside," and you replied, "It's likely hot outside," they might look at you strangely, but your statement isn't technically wrong.
This is why D works: the "likely" in the sufficient condition ("If a business is likely to fail") stays the same; we do add a "likely" to the necessary condition ("no one will invest in it"), but since this was originally a certain/definite result, that statement remains true, though we're arbitrarily weakening it. However, if we got rid of the "likely" in the sufficient (i.e., we went from "If a business is likely to fail" to "Pallid Star did fail") then we would have changed the conditional, since even if Pallid Star did fail, we don't know if it met the original condition of being likely to fail -- and the argument in D would be invalid.
#help In the stimulus explanation, I understand the first mistake about the failed attempt to deny the necessary condition. However, if it weren't for that mistake, would it really be flawed to conclude that it's likely that Jackie's first child wasn't born before its due date either (since a likelihood of 100% technically qualifies as "likely")? While "likely" softens the language, the truth of the premises would still guarantee the truth of the conclusion, right?
I feel like none of this question type can rightly be called one star difficulty. Even if the reasoning itself is simple it's still easy to get bogged down in the answer choices. Yes, it's easy to get correct, but difficult to get it correct with good timing.
me doing other types of questions: even already locate the 'should-be-correct' answer, still quickly check other 'should-be-wrong' answers just to make sure
me doing this type of questions: once locate a 'might-be-correct' answer, select it immediately without any hesitation and move on as fast as i can
I confidently chose A thinking this was way too easy and audibly gasped when I saw the correct answer was C. Thank you LSAT for continuing to humble me. <3
Got the previous question right pretty easily + within time constraint. Went a minute over time with this one and found it harder lol. Still got it right tho(thank god)
I am slightly confused about what happens when uncertain terms such as likely are used in conditional arguments. Since the argument follows a traditional conditional argument form, but uses the term likely, could it ever be considered valid? For example, if the second premise was "It is not likely that Jackie's second baby is born before its due date," and the conclusion was "so Jackie's first child was not born before its due date either," would this be a valid argument? It sounds weird because of the term "likely," but just wanting to know if an argument in conditional form can be valid even when it uses uncertain langauge.
Not sure if anyone else can relate but the one-star questions often make me second-guess myself. They feel too simple.
23
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!
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!
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.
59 comments
Would it have also been correct to eliminate A because they just say "Ben" without confirming he's an Artisan? Cause doesn't it have to say something like: "Ben, who is an artisan,..."?
Got this right and then saw the difficulty level.
I actually really liked Hawkman II
when actually drilling and doing these questions, are we supposed to actually draw/map out the arguments?
Got to answer C and didn't even read D & E. Knew it was right lets go!
This one seemed too easy that I almost second-guessed myself.
Student Question: I'm wondering if the “softer” conclusion (using the word “likely” when it’s not necessary to do so) makes the argument weaker or invalid. (I understand that this is one of multiple flaws, and I understand the other flaws but not this one.) In the explanation of the stimulus, J.Y. discusses this as “another mistake” in the passage. However, when there’s a similar mistake in answer choice (D), he says the argument in (D) is valid although the conclusion could have been even stronger. So, is an argument like “If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is likely wet” valid? Is it weaker than an argument with the revised conclusion “Therefore, the ground is wet”?
Tutor Answer: In the explanation, the "likely" is another mistake in the sense that, if the argument were truly being consistent with the flaw it makes (erroneous contrapositive), we would just go straight to negating the original sufficient condition, which is about a definite fact (the first child was born before the due date). Without getting too much into the weeds, it's important to see that we're not repeating the flaw that makes the whole reasoning wrong: substituting "not born before the due date" for "was not likely to have been born before the due date." In this first case, removing the "likely" changes the original negative condition from a statement about likelihood or probability ("it is likely her second child will be born before the due date") to a statement of fact that doesn't tell us anything about likelihood ("her second child was not born before the due date"). In this case, removing the "likely" changes the nature of the condition. Meanwhile, adding a "likely" to "it is likely that Jackie's first child was not born before its due date" is unnecessary and doesn't fix the flaw, but it also doesn't repeat the original mistake: our prediction, if this were a true contrapositive, would normally be that her first child was definitely not born before the due date; when "likely" is added to a definite statement, it softens it, but the statement is still true.
A good way to think about this is as follows: if we go from a likelihood to a certainty (i.e, we drop a "likely"), we change the nature of the condition, which is not allowed -- but we can modify from a certainty to a likelihood (i.e., add a "likely"), even if it's unnecessary. If your friends told you, "We checked the thermometer, and it's definitely, 100% verified, hot outside," and you replied, "It's likely hot outside," they might look at you strangely, but your statement isn't technically wrong.
This is why D works: the "likely" in the sufficient condition ("If a business is likely to fail") stays the same; we do add a "likely" to the necessary condition ("no one will invest in it"), but since this was originally a certain/definite result, that statement remains true, though we're arbitrarily weakening it. However, if we got rid of the "likely" in the sufficient (i.e., we went from "If a business is likely to fail" to "Pallid Star did fail") then we would have changed the conditional, since even if Pallid Star did fail, we don't know if it met the original condition of being likely to fail -- and the argument in D would be invalid.
#help In the stimulus explanation, I understand the first mistake about the failed attempt to deny the necessary condition. However, if it weren't for that mistake, would it really be flawed to conclude that it's likely that Jackie's first child wasn't born before its due date either (since a likelihood of 100% technically qualifies as "likely")? While "likely" softens the language, the truth of the premises would still guarantee the truth of the conclusion, right?
I feel like none of this question type can rightly be called one star difficulty. Even if the reasoning itself is simple it's still easy to get bogged down in the answer choices. Yes, it's easy to get correct, but difficult to get it correct with good timing.
bye i got this wrong
Got this wrong because i went against my gut urggggggg
felt like a boss answering this one star question
A and B were both pretty attractive answers but in BR I got it after seeing that the rule applied the best with C
#help
So contraposing is wrong solely because the language in the stim isn’t strong enough to trigger a failed condition and leaves it to ambiguous ?
Pointing out the Quantitative or Qualitative word in the stimulus also works - for this one is Likely.
me doing other types of questions: even already locate the 'should-be-correct' answer, still quickly check other 'should-be-wrong' answers just to make sure
me doing this type of questions: once locate a 'might-be-correct' answer, select it immediately without any hesitation and move on as fast as i can
I hate this question type :(
First question where I had the confidence to choose the right answer without reading all of the ACs lol.
not the Hawkman slander
Excited I got a "tricky"one right... ends up only being a 1 on difficulty
I confidently chose A thinking this was way too easy and audibly gasped when I saw the correct answer was C. Thank you LSAT for continuing to humble me. <3
"questionable reasoning" made me giggle
Hawkman II-ah
Got the previous question right pretty easily + within time constraint. Went a minute over time with this one and found it harder lol. Still got it right tho(thank god)
I am slightly confused about what happens when uncertain terms such as likely are used in conditional arguments. Since the argument follows a traditional conditional argument form, but uses the term likely, could it ever be considered valid? For example, if the second premise was "It is not likely that Jackie's second baby is born before its due date," and the conclusion was "so Jackie's first child was not born before its due date either," would this be a valid argument? It sounds weird because of the term "likely," but just wanting to know if an argument in conditional form can be valid even when it uses uncertain langauge.
Not sure if anyone else can relate but the one-star questions often make me second-guess myself. They feel too simple.